[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#18698: Our WindowMaker wrapper pollutes PATH in the entire X session

From: 宋文武
Subject: bug#18698: Our WindowMaker wrapper pollutes PATH in the entire X session
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 13:22:30 +0800
User-agent: Notmuch/0.18.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> 宋文武 <address@hidden> skribis:
>> Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> writes:
>>> The fix may have resulted in unintended side-effects.  On a fresh
>>> installation of the System Distribution v0.8.1 WindowMaker is installed
>>> by default, but it is not completely functional.
>>> For example, the attempt to change the style via the menu results in
>>> this error to be displayed:
>>>     Could not execute command:
>>>         setstyle 
>>> /gnu/store/...windowmaker.../share/WindowMaker/Styles/Black.style
>>> Likewise, selecting "Configure Window Maker" from the right-click menu
>>> results in this error:
>>>     Could not execute command: exec WPrefs
>>> The "setstyle" executable is located in
>>> /gnu/store/...windowmaker.../bin/, but is not in the PATH.
>> Yes, the $out/bin of windowmaker is not in $PATH, and same for sawfish.
>> Instead of wrapping every executable of session-type, we can:
>> #1: Add the package to system profile ('packages').
>>   It's not clear to me how to do it now, until we have something
>>   like the NixOS's module system.
> What I have in mind is to add a ‘packages’ field in ‘service’.  That
> would allow service implementations to contribute packages to the global
> profile.  Thoughts?
It's fine, but we may also need a 'dbus-service' field (for wicd).
>> #2: Make SLiM use '/run/current-system/profile/share/xsessions' as
>>     session_dir.
>>   So simply add a package providing xsession file to 'packages' should
>>   make it available to SLiM.  And all DE and many window-managers provide
>>   xsession files already (eg: openbox, sawfish, xfce), we can patch
>>   the rest (eg: WindowMaker) to install one.
> IIUC the bug initially reported here would remain: the user’s $PATH
> would be polluted with the window manager’s stuff, no?
I think the 'polluted' means we have a $PATH contains:
install it to profile doesn't have this issue.
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]