... 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 <[email protected]> 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 > implies -nolock. > > This is becoming a problem now that -displayfd is getting used by > display-managers (e.g. gdm), this fixes this by also checking for > /tmp/.X11-unix/X? > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <[email protected]> > --- > startx.cpp | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/startx.cpp b/startx.cpp > index 8520399..fe49996 100644 > --- a/startx.cpp > +++ b/startx.cpp > @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ enable_xauth=1 > XCOMM Automatically determine an unused $DISPLAY > d=0 > while true ; do > - [ -e /tmp/.X$d-lock ] || break > + [ -e "/tmp/.X$d-lock" -o -S "/tmp/.X11-unix/X$d" ] || break > d=$(($d + 1)) > done > defaultdisplay=":$d" > -- > 2.3.3 > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected]: X.Org development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel -- Jasper
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
