[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 2/2] mesa: load a user defined drirc file specified via an environment variable

[Edmondo Tommasina]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net> wrote:
> Edmondo Tommasina <edmondo.tommasina at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net> wrote:
>>> Edmondo Tommasina <edmondo.tommasina at gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net> wrote:
>>>>> Edmondo Tommasina <edmondo.tommasina at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Define a new MESA_USER_DRIRC environment variable to load a customized
>>>>>> drirc file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the variable is not defined, nothing changes and the ${HOME}/.drirc
>>>>>> file will be loaded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the variable is set to a file, this file will be loaded instead of
>>>>>> the the ${HOME}/.drirc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Example: MESA_USER_DRIRC=~/glthread.drirc glxgears
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the variable is set to nothing, it avoids to load the ${HOME}/.drirc
>>>>>> file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Example: MESA_USER_DRIRC= glxgears
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you extend the commit message to describe what problem is being
>>>>> solved?  Why wouldn't you just customize your .drirc, since it's in your
>>>>> homedir already?
>>>>
>>>> I've posted a second version of the patch, trying to better document the
>>>> possible generic usage of the variable.
>>>>
>>>> My use: I don't have a ~/.drirc file since I prefer to have my desktop
>>>> running with the default mesa setting (/etc/drirc). If the ~/.drirc file
>>>> would exist, it would impact all the applications started with my
>>>> user and not only the one I want to test. This is potentially a little
>>>> problem being solved.
>>>>
>>>> For me it's useful when I test/benchmark something: I like to use
>>>> prepared config file just for this kind of test, instead of passing
>>>> a list of env variables.
>>>
>>> So you want to set this environment variable so you can avoid passing
>>> things as environment variables?  That doesn't seem like a strong enough
>>> justification for the patch, to me.
>>
>> Right. But well, this was the weakest justification of the three I've
>> given. Anyways, I agree :)
>>
>> Any opinion about the possibility to skip the load of ~/.drirc with
>> the variable? Could this be useful?
>
> I don't see why, if you want to not have a .drirc, you don't just delete
> .drirc.  Or, if you have some settings in .drirc you don't want, you
> don't just remove them.

OK, let's forget this patch then. It doesn't seem worthy enough.

Thanks
edmondo