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/
