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

Re: PROPOSED: new package: xinit

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.
branden@debian.org                 |      -- Robert Anton Wilson
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpLPlQk32HQ7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: