Bringing this up again. What do you guys think? Does it make sense to push this change?
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Dima Ryazanov <d...@gmail.com> wrote: > (Oops, sent too soon by accident.) > > Yep, DISPLAY always needs to be set - and I figured, there's a reason it > is that way, so that's actually why I thought it made sense to use the same > convention for WAYLAND_DISPLAY. > > Also, regarding Bill's first comment: yeah, that certainly works, but it > feels like a workaround. It only gets more complicated if the app supports > more backends - framebuffer, etc. > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Dima Ryazanov <d...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yep, DISPLAY always needs to be set - and I figured, there's a reason >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 26 May 2015 10:40:15 +0100 >>> Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > On 26 May 2015 at 10:26, Giulio Camuffo <giuliocamu...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > 2015-05-26 12:21 GMT+03:00 Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com>: >>> > >> I have a vague recollection this has been proposed before, but I >>> can't >>> > >> remember if there was any interest or discussion, nor what was the >>> > >> original intent behind defaulting to "wayland-0". >>> > >>> > Probably to match X11's behaviour of using :0 in the absence of a >>> $DISPLAY. >>> >>> Really? ;-) >>> >>> $ export -n DISPLAY >>> $ xterm >>> xterm: Xt error: Can't open display: >>> xterm: DISPLAY is not set >>> >>> Geany and gqview fail to start, and konsole segfaults (lol). >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> pq >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
