On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > I tend to be skeptical of new packages like this
As do I. > More importantly, even startx/xinit aren't strictly required to run X, > are they? No, but lots and lots of people use them. And, let's be honest -- xauth isn't strictly required to start an X session either. You could bang on $XAUTHORITY yourself with a shell script, or just use host-based authentication. So, no, I'm not arguing that these three tools are mandatory for getting an X session started, and if you'll review my mail you won't find any such claim. > IOW, there's no clear line that suggests why these programs are > required and others shouldn't be. Perfectly true. Review my mail, where I said that I am getting an increasing number of requests for this. > A more interesting question might be whether xauth should move. There > are cases where you might want that and never run X locally (e.g., ssh.) > The current state of affairs requires a lot of additional crap to be > pulled in, which kinda negates the purpose of the minimal xlib policy > (perhaps xauth belongs there, with the xlibs?). But ISTR you didn't want > to talk about other options. :) If people think they're going to be able to get rid of xlibs with this proposal, they're on drugs. They will, however, be able to do without libxaw{6,7}, libdps1, and xlib{os,}mesa3. The question of whether xauth should move is no more interesting than the question of whether xinit should move. Both link against Xlib. -- G. Branden Robinson | When dogma enters the brain, all Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual activity ceases. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Anton Wilson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpj6HdGkhdeh.pgp
Description: PGP signature