On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 06:20:08AM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I tried to get Xt to look in both directories, but several different
> > attempts failed.
>
> It shouldn't be that hard to open one pathname and if you get ENOENT,
> to try opening the other insteadthat might be a useful
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether app-defaults files can be regarded as configuration files or not is
> an arbitrary decision. By moving them to /etc/X11 in the default
> configuration, XFree86 has indicated their opinion. I see no reason to
> differ with them.
In my soon-t
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:19:17PM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> 1. It is my understanding that app-defaults files are not configuration
>files, they are just default settings stored outside the binary.
>Therefore, a sysadmin can be expected not to modify them.
On the contrary, they can.
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:12:27AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Why don't you just tell that XF4 will recognize
> etc/X11/XF86Config-4 before etc/X11/XF86Config ? it would have informed me of
> my error in far less words.
But it would not have reinforced the desirable behavior of Reading The
F'ing
Can I ask a question ?
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:21:54 -0500,
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It has to do with app-defaults files. Current Debian policy says these
> can't be conffiles, so they go in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults.
>
> Well, upstream has c
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
[...]
> > So, why not hack X[2]? Make the library look in /etc/X11/app-defaults, then
> > in the old location. Make policy that states that packages depending on the
> > X 4 version of that li
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 10:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:50:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Well if i install the 3.3.6 X server, it will read its configuration file
> > from
> > /etc/X11
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:50:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Well if i install the 3.3.6 X server, it will read its configuration file from
> /etc/X11/XF86Config, and the 4.0.1 X server will read his from the exact same
> locatio
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:50:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:27:55AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Ok, about the X server, but will we maintain two sets of libraries also, or
> > go
> > with the 4.0.1 ones ?
>
> Just the 4.0.1 ones.
>
> > Also how did you solve
Please don't CC me on list mails.
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:54:09AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > I was hoping to avoid this, but developing consensus on -policy seems to be
> > that I should do this. Sigh.
> >
> >> [1] Verified, that is lib/Xt/Initialize.c, XtScreenDatabase()
> >
> >
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Indeed, I believe this is an Xrm issue, not necessarily a Xt one.
Well the file I referenced is the only .c or .h file in all of X that
contains the string '"app-defaults"'.
> Hacking X to do this seems bad. Why did upstream not have a similar redundant
> search path
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Can't you play a trick with XUSERFILESEARCHPATH internally? That might
> work (I'm assuming it has some built-in default value here).
Actually, the search path's value comes from the Imakefile, where is is
set via some imake function like this:
SEARCHPATHDEFAULT
> I was hoping to avoid this, but developing consensus on -policy seems to be
> that I should do this. Sigh.
>
>> [1] Verified, that is lib/Xt/Initialize.c, XtScreenDatabase()
>
> I'm not sure it's not the only one. It's not just Xt-using apps that read
> app-defaults, IIRC. I think the Xrm* f
Previously Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > So, why not hack X[2]? Make the library look in /etc/X11/app-defaults, then
> > in the old location. Make policy that states that packages depending on the
> > X 4 version of that library should use
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:27:58AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:21:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What's worse is that /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults is going to need to
> > become a symbolic link to /etc/X11/app-defaults, and because dpkg does not
>
> I fail
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm. What bogus information will dpkg have?
[...]
> I can only identify two problems:
>
> * dpkg -S /etc/X11/app-defaults/foo will fail.
That's what I was thinking of.
> * If some other package also contains an app-defaults file named
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:27:55AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Ok, about the X server, but will we maintain two sets of libraries also, or go
> with the 4.0.1 ones ?
Just the 4.0.1 ones.
> Also how did you solve the XF86Config conflict ? since 4.x a,d 3.x XF86Config
> files are not compatible.
T
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It has to do with app-defaults files. Current Debian policy says
> these can't be conffiles, so they go in
> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults.
> Well, upstream has changed things, and it putting them in
> /etc/X11/app-defaults. Rather than buck this
[ Talking about /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults directory, which is
planned to be a symlink to /etc/X11/app-defaults. ]
> *HOWEVER*, dpkg's databases will contain bogus information about the
> locations of files installed to that directory. So it is imperative that
> these packages have new vers
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:21:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What's worse is that /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults is going to need to
> become a symbolic link to /etc/X11/app-defaults, and because dpkg does not
I fail to see why we have to do this. Why not search both directories?
> Here's
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> > primary X server, will it not ?
>
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by peo
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> primary X server, will it not ?
I expect it to be widely used, especially by people with recent hardware.
Some of the 3.x series X servers will continue to
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:21:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> As some of you know, highly unstable and experimental 4.0.1 .debs were
> produced on Friday and made available to a few people for testing. These
> things were way broken, but not as badly as I feared. I got some v
Hi folks.
As some of you know, highly unstable and experimental 4.0.1 .debs were
produced on Friday and made available to a few people for testing. These
things were way broken, but not as badly as I feared. I got some valuable
feedback, made some fixes, and am preparing for a real Phase 1 relea
24 matches
Mail list logo
