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

Bug#838910: X11-common: Please be more specific about the purpose of ~/.xsessionrc



Package: X11-common
Version: 1:7.7+16
Severity: normal
Tags: patch



Xsession(5) says:

 /etc/X11/Xsession.d/40x11-common_xsessionrc
        Source global environment variables. This script will source
        anything in $HOME/.xsessionrc if the file is present. This
        allows the user to set global environment variables for their
        X session, such as locale information.

A number of questions come to mind.

Is this file intended solely for environment variables? If so, how does
one control that?

It appears anything that can go in ~/.xsession can go in ~/.xsessionrc.
Where should lines and scripts starting programs go? In ~/.xsessionrc or
~/.xsession? Does it matter? (I keep thinking I'm missing something
here).

Was there ever a need to introduce ~/.xsessionrc in reponse to #411639
and, if so, is it still a useful file? 'exec x-window-manager' or 'exec
x-session-manager' in ~/.xsession would seem to have been a solution to
the reporter's problem. A side-effect of the existence of this file and
its documentation is the number of users who think ~/.xsessionrc is a
more modern ~/.xsession and supplants it

Anyway, if ~/.xsessionrc is to be kept as a feature of Debian's X, I'd
suggest the docmentation be changed to read something like this:

 A ~/.xsession must contain a command for a process which does not
 complete (e.g. 'exec fvwm'). If it doesn't it is not possible to
 put environment variables (or anything else) there. In the absence
 of a suitable ~/.xsession a user may set configuration directives
 in ~/.xsessionrc.

A situation in which users are recommended to use a ~/.xsessionrc is
when lightdm is the session manager and it is desired to source
~/.profile (#636108). Presumably the user doesn't have a ~/.xsession
with a line for non-completing process. (What is the disadvatage to
recommending 'exec gnome-session' in ~/.xsession)?

Regards,

Brian.


Reply to: