Re: checkX problems

["Lothar Brendel" <lottas dot junk at geekmail dot de>]

Jon TURNEY wrote:

[...]

> Fortunately, the X server
> binds it's socket pretty early in the startup, so this probably works
> pretty well, but in theory at least there is still a possible timing
> window in startxwin.bat.

Yep, and in my setup the X server *always* comes up too late.


> So it perhaps be useful if checkX retried the XOpenDisplay()
> periodically until the timeout was up (as xinit does)

In principle, the script calling checkX could do that, because ``checkX'' 
has return status 1 if it couldn't connect. But as I already pointed out 
(http://www.mail-archive.com/cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com/msg19529.html) 
``startxwin.bat'' uses ``run'' as a wrapper for ``checkX''. => Definitely no 
waiting and no passing on of the status of ``checkX'' to %errorlevel%, as 
``run'' immediately goes background (unless called from an xterm, dunno 
why).

Since more people seem to have this problem (cf. also Olivia's post), I 
repeat my question (essentially already posed by Ken Brown: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com/msg19402.html): Why 
using ``run'' at all? If we really need a wrapper (do we?) wouldn't ``sh'' 
be a better one?

To push this even further: Do we really need two *independent* scripts, 
``starxwin.bat'' and ``starxwin.sh''? Why can't the former just delegate to 
the latter?

Asks
       Lothar


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ:                   http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/