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

Re: modular /etc/X11/Xsession?

On debian-devel, Jeff Teunissen <deek@dusknet.ddns.org> wrote:
> While working on my machine, I got annoyed with wdm -- namely that every
> time I picked wmaker from the menu (fvwm95 being the default, because my
> wife likes it), the next time I logged in, I had to pick it again, and
> again, ad nauseum, until I either moved wmaker to the top of
> /etc/X11/window-managers (which would stick my wife with wmaker, which
> she hates) or created my own .xsession file.
> So, I hacked up a replacement Xsession that uses a variation on the
> scheme that gnome-session uses (~/.gnome/wm or something like that).

I do not understand. Surely to make the .xsession file you just write
something like this:

exec /usr/bin/X11/wmaker

Then use chmod to make it executable, no hacking of other files needed.

> But of course, next time xfree86-common gets updated, I'd have to make
> that choice and scan for new stuff. 

I do not understand. Why would you need to change a two line .xsession file
when a new version of xfree86-common is released?

> Plus there's that problem with utilities that would be useful, but difficult
> for a package to install in the Xsession file automatically. Why not do a
> modular Xsession file that works similar to /etc/init.d/rcS, sourcing files 
> that needed access to variables, and running those that didn't?

Could you give some examples of programs you want starting automatically in
.xsession? The only ones I can think of are some things like xclock and it
should be the user, not the package maintainer who decides to they want a
particular program loaded.

> so I did, and strangely enough, it works.
> I stripped out all unnecessary stuff from /etc/X11/Xsession (the core
> script is now 36 lines long), moved it into scripts in
> /etc/X11/Xsession.d, and snagged some of the logic from /etc/init.d/rcS
> to do my dirty work.

> Questions? Suggestions? Flames? Should I forward my mods to the X
> maintainer?

Yes, why would you want to do that? Seems pointless and over complicated to

I consume, therefore I am

Attachment: pgpk053CetY87.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: