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

[Dima Ryazanov]

(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/20150527/a320213d/attachment.html>