> On Dec. 24, 2011, 8:28 a.m., David Faure wrote:
> > This seems like a dangerous change to me.
> >
> > With it, you could run multiple instance of "kmail --nofork", and they
> > would step on each other's toes. The whole point of kuniqueapplication (in
> > normal apps, not in konsole), is to prevent multiple instances of the
> > application from running.
> > A developer using --nofork in valgrind or gdb shouldn't run the risk that
> > an app that wasn't mean to run twice, ends up running twice.
> >
> > konsole is doing rather unusual stuff with kuniqueapplication so I can't
> > comment on what would be the proper fix for konsole, but I'm pretty sure it
> > should only affect konsole, not other kuniqueapplications.
>
> Thomas Lübking wrote:
> Seconded - "Do NOT ship it!"
>
> $ <random kuniqueapplication> --help-kde
> ...
> --nofork Do not run in the background.
>
>
> There's no indication this means to spawn a new process and it's (despite
> the ambigious term) obviously not meant like this (but meaning "do not fork
> to background")
>
> -> Solution:
> Konsole should add an extra parameter or map it's --nofork to
> NonUniqueInstance in the ::start() call.
>
> Turning "--nofork" to "--new-process" for general kuniqueapplication is
> rather a no-go, because applications like eg. k3b or amarok could possibly
> really rely on it (ioctl/database messup)
>
> I do see your point in either having an extra konsole process as well as
> in redirecting IO, but please fix it in konsole *only*
>
> David Faure wrote:
> Don't get confused by the variable name. AFAICS "forceNewProcess" only
> means that it will register to DBus as kfoo-PID instead of kfoo.
> Nofork doesn't fork, the patch doesn't change that, AFAICS.
>
>
> Thomas Lübking wrote:
> Looking at the patch, setting that flag would get him into the block he
> desires so whatever the effect of the patch is, setting the flag should gain
> the same, yesno?!
>
> Askar Safin wrote:
> Yes, you are right. So, please add to konsole/src/main.cpp to function
> forceNewProcess() check, wherever or not there is option "--nofork".
>
> Askar Safin wrote:
> Thomas, if you apply the patch, konsole will start in new process if
> there is --nofork option independently of terminal status. But, as I said, my
> patch is bad idea, edit konsole/src/main.cpp
>
> Thomas Lübking wrote:
> I didn't mean to question that result, just that that's not the purpose
> of --nofork in general. Konsole somehow abuses it ;-)
>
> PS: i'm not the maintainer of konsole, so i cannot just add that check
> there across whoever /is/ the maintainer, sorry.
What can I do to apply change to konsole?
I cannot post it to reviewboard, because I cannot write patch (trivial solution
'return (isatty(1) && !args->isSet("new-tab")) || args->isSet("no-fork")'
suddenly doesn't work, because option "no-fork" is in another container).
I cannot post it to bugs.kde.org, because there bugs stay opened very long time.
How to contact with konsole maintainers?
- Askar
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103333/#review9226
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 25, 2011, 9:01 a.m., Askar Safin wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103333/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 25, 2011, 9:01 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for kdelibs and Konsole.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=288200
>
>
> This addresses bug 288200.
> http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=288200
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> kdeui/kernel/kuniqueapplication.cpp 777fc35
>
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103333/diff/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Askar Safin
>
>
