startxwin.exe no longer exists?
Tue Dec 16 22:58:00 GMT 2014
Erik Soderquist wrote:
>> Shouldn't the startxwin script check for running instances and delete all
>> lock-files related to non-existent instances? Why must this be a manual
> I generally recommend against automagic cleanup of lock files from
> dead sessions being a general default because that also wipes out
> warning that something went wrong. I do it in my situation because I
> have it on (essentially) dumb terminals where the session working is
> much more important than knowing something went wrong, and the dumb
> terminals are on flaky power, so most of the dead sessions are due to
> power failure anyway.
Apparently not. If I start an X session (using the standard menu item
under the start menu) and manually shut it down, the lock file is not
>> The prior startxwin.exe "just worked", and this new replacement script is
>> clearly creating problems for previously happy CygwinX users, where no
>> problems existed before (or, at least the problems weren't visible and
>> didn't affect normal use).
Yes, startxwin.exe "just worked", and the replacement doesn't.
> I actually have no experience with startxwin; I always called the X
> server directly with the options I wanted.
What do you mean "directly"? From a mintty or such?
> However, I can say that
> freeing of lock files is the job of the process that created the lock
> files. If you kill the process, stray lock files are a normal
No they're not, unless you restrict "kill" to mean "kill -9" or
equivalent. If you kill a process using just "kill", or bu shutting
it down normally, it should clean up its lock file.
>> I would have preferred to have seen startxwin.exe retained, and this new
>> script phased in gradually, perhaps as "startxwin_new" in the first release.
>> Then, when startxwin_new stabilizes, rename the executable to
>> startxwin_old.exe and the script to startxwin. Several updates later,
>> quietly remove startxwin_old.exe.
>> It seems nonsensical to treat all CygwinX users as alpha testers. I'm more
>> than willing to help test new features, but not in the dark: Make it very
>> clear when significant subsystems are being evolved, and provide a way to
>> try the new without losing the old.
> The changes were announced, and the announcement already sited in this
> thread. Having read the announcement again, it looks like the
> replacement has as one of its goals bringing the X system more in line
> with general X and *nix standards, which, as far as I know, has always
> been a general goal of the entire Cygwin set of projects.
Then it's not succeeding. Shutting down X normally under *nix does not
result in left-over lock files.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
More information about the Cygwin-xfree