(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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 May 2015 10:40:15 +0100 >> Daniel Stone <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > On 26 May 2015 at 10:26, Giulio Camuffo <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > 2015-05-26 12:21 GMT+03:00 Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]>: >> > >> 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 >> > >
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
