[PATCH wayland] RFC: Require WAYLAND_DISPLAY to be set instead of using wayland-0 as the default

[Dima Ryazanov]

Bringing this up again. What do you guys think? Does it make sense to push
this change?

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Dima Ryazanov <dima at gmail.com> wrote:

> (Oops, sent too soon by accident.)
>
> Yep, DISPLAY always needs to be set - and I figured, there's a reason it
> is that way, so that's actually why I thought it made sense to use the same
> convention for WAYLAND_DISPLAY.
>
> Also, regarding Bill's first comment: yeah, that certainly works, but it
> feels like a workaround. It only gets more complicated if the app supports
> more backends - framebuffer, etc.
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Dima Ryazanov <dima at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yep, DISPLAY always needs to be set - and I figured, there's a reason
>>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 May 2015 10:40:15 +0100
>>> Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > On 26 May 2015 at 10:26, Giulio Camuffo <giuliocamuffo at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > 2015-05-26 12:21 GMT+03:00 Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com>:
>>> > >> I have a vague recollection this has been proposed before, but I
>>> can't
>>> > >> remember if there was any interest or discussion, nor what was the
>>> > >> original intent behind defaulting to "wayland-0".
>>> >
>>> > Probably to match X11's behaviour of using :0 in the absence of a
>>> $DISPLAY.
>>>
>>> Really? ;-)
>>>
>>> $ export -n DISPLAY
>>> $ xterm
>>> xterm: Xt error: Can't open display:
>>> xterm: DISPLAY is not set
>>>
>>> Geany and gqview fail to start, and konsole segfaults (lol).
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> pq
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20150624/ec9192aa/attachment.html>