[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: set gnome locales to C.UTF-8



On Fri 28 Feb 2020 at 11:21:35 (-0500), Ted Baker wrote:
> >
> > In GNOME, terminals are not children of the window manager, or even of
> > the session manager.  When you ask for a terminal, GNOME sends a letter
> > to dbus, asking dbus to please make a terminal.  Your gnome-terminal
> > is a child of dbus, and inherits its environment from dbus.
> >
> > You do not get full control over dbus.  You can't tell it to set its
> > umask to 002, or to set one particular locale variable differently from
> > the rest, and so on.  There's just a limited set of things you're allowed
> > to tell it to do, and good luck finding the documentation for those.
> 
> so in my terminal, I can see the parental relationship is,
> 
> init -> systemd --user -> gnome-terminal-server -> bash
> where init is /usr/lib/systemd
> 
> how do these three processes fit into your dbus description?

I've no idea about the answer to that, but I am interested about
how you ascertained the parental relationship. I don't use gnome,
but the more traditional WM. Here are two sample process trees,
obtained by running the processes you can see within them.

Like G.W. Haywood, I run fvwm with
twenty virtual desktops (though most only have a single xterm).
Those xterms are started in .xsession via xtoolwait, a
long-discontinued program that waits until the xterm maps its
window on the screen before exiting (hence allowing the script
to start the next one).

A tree of processes for one of these xterms (PID 1960) is attached
in process-tree-normal, the pruned output of PID 17422. AIUI the
parent of the xterms (1) is deceptive and is the result of each
xtoolwait dying, which causes systemd to reparent/adopt it.

I can also start an xterm directly from the fvwm menu, and a
similar tree is attached in process-tree-ephemeral. This shows
the parental relationship more clearly as they're all still
running (at least back to login, 732.

Cheers,
David.


Reply to: