Hi,
On 25-03-15 01:54, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:02:35PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Currently startx relies on /tmp/.X?-lock being present for automatically
picking a free display number. This does not work if -nolock is used when
starting the server, or if the server
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:02:35PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Currently startx relies on /tmp/.X?-lock being present for automatically
picking a free display number. This does not work if -nolock is used when
starting the server, or if the server is started with -displayfd as -displayfd
Currently startx relies on /tmp/.X?-lock being present for automatically
picking a free display number. This does not work if -nolock is used when
starting the server, or if the server is started with -displayfd as -displayfd
implies -nolock.
This is becoming a problem now that -displayfd is
... Why does displayfd imply nolock? That seems strange to me. I consider
the .X0-lock files an API that we shouldn't break.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
Currently startx relies on /tmp/.X?-lock being present for automatically
picking a free display
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Jasper St. Pierre
jstpie...@mecheye.net wrote:
... Why does displayfd imply nolock?
It doesn't really matter why it implies, nolock, I guess. The issue at
hand is that it
does (and always has) implied nolock. You can't fix that without
breaking things that
