On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 20:59:42 +0100 Simon McVittie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13/04/15 16:36, Mattias Andrée wrote: > > Have you considered that you may want to have two > > displays (for example two instances of X or two > > instances of Mir) with the same $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR? > > Then you can use DISPLAY and/or the X-replacement's > equivalent, just like you can still use > DBUS_SESSION_BUS_ADDRESS if you want to have more than > one instance of the D-Bus session bus with the same > XDG_RUNTIME_DIR. But I don't think this should be > required in the simpler situations that ought to "just > work", like running an X app from the context of a > per-user service where the user in question has exactly > one graphical desktop. I just meant that it ushers unnecessary complexity. > > Note that this is per-(user,machine), not per-machine: > the unusual case here is having more than one Xserver > *per user* per machine. That's quite an unusual thing to > do even with multi-seat, because in my experience, people > are usually in one physical place at any given time :-) I'm always superpositioned. > > If you do want to be on more than one display device at a > time, it seems like it would be better to be able to > attach/detach output devices to a single > DISPLAY-equivalent and move windows between them (as > opposed to "I can't usefully edit that document, because > I left it open with unsaved changes on seat0", or worse, > "I can't read my email without kill(1), because I left > Thunderbird running on seat0"). That can't work if each > application is bound to a display by the initial values > of its environment variables. > > >> dbus 1.9 defaults to using $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/bus if it > > > > I hope you mean $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/dbus, otherwise someone > > need to make an amendment to dbus. > > I do mean XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/bus. The initial proposal was > XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/dbus/user_bus_socket (as seen in > user-session-units and other early work on having one bus > per user), but the sd-bus/kdbus developers wanted > X_R_D/bus, which had in fact been sd-bus' default for > quite a while before this was merged into dbus: > > """ > In the systemd context we tried to avoid using the name > "dbus" too much for the generic bits. We just refer to > the "bus", without any further naming, since we want to > ensure that there's no doubt that this is the one and > only bus that matters on the OS, and not just one project > among many. """ - > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61303#c27 I'm sorry to whomever wrote that. But that is amongst the stupidest things I have every heard. It almost have "the earth was created on year 0" beat. Of course, it should be dbus, dbus is the project. > > I wanted to get this merged rather than painting > naming-related bike sheds: partly because many "session" > services, e.g. dconf, really want to be user services; > partly because the kdbus developers have indicated that > they will never support multiple session buses per user, > and I wanted to start getting implementation experience > for that mode before kdbus lands; and partly because the > other option for a default way to connect to D-Bus is > dbus-launch, which is tied to X11 anyway, so Wayland/Mir > is a natural opportunity to get rid of it. > It is ridiculous, and I hope we can get rid of this overused D-Bus crapware and kdbus. My computer is of course not running D-Bus, nor will my display server. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
