On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 12:15:54PM +0300, Mikhail wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 08:00:26AM +0100, Matthieu Herrb wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:52:44AM +0000, Laurence Tratt wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 09:29:53PM +0300, Mikhail wrote: > > > > > > Hello Mikhail, > > > > > > > /etc/X11/xenodm/Xsession file has a check for x bit > > > > > > Yes, this one caught me out a few years back: > > > > > > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs&m=162737223625768&w=2 > > > > > > In subsequent discussions with Matthieu and Theo, I *think* the > > > eventual thought was that it would be better to get rid of the `-x` > > > check. I might be misremembering that, though. > > > > > > > I'm fine with not runing the script if not executable. I don't > > remember exactly why I didn't do it when you brought the issue up in > > 2021. But I prefer to use the fallback session when the script exists > > and isn't executable rather than letting the session fail immediatly. > > > > ok? > > It will break setups which people have working now, but what do we get > in return? Just to be complaint with the docs? >
As Klemens and Laurence have mentionned it, the current code leads to subtle behaviour changes depending on whether the user .xsession file is executable or not. It has always been documented that the file needs to be executable, so people who rely on the undocumented feature need to fix their setups. I'll add an entry in current.html if I get oks for the diff. -- Matthieu Herrb
