checkX problem or misunderstanding

checkX problem or misunderstanding

[wynfield]

Re: checkX

  $ checkX --version
    run2 0.4.2

checkX doesn't work as I understand the description below:

"DESCRIPTION
       Determines  if  X is installed, Xserver is running on specified DISPLAY
       and will accept clients. Returns 0 if yes, nonzero otherwise"


Environment / Procedure to duplicate the error:

 - I have an X11 server running, started in pty0, where I will test checkX 

 - In this pty0, I start an X11 server, which from the xinitrc starts up another mintty
    terminal, pty1 with Display environment variable set to :0

 - Testing checkX in pty1 (which has DISPLAY set) returns a 0 or successful result.
   checkX :0  --> returns 0
   
 - Moving back to pty0 and running the same command with the same argument gives:
   checkX :0  --> return 1 and error condition or no server available.


However, if I simply manually set DISPLAY=:0 in pty0   X11 clients will run.

-  export DISPLAY=127.0.0.1:0
-  checkX :0  --> Nnw reports an o.k. this server is useable.


If one relied on checkX the runing server would be missed.  It is doing nothing that a check if DISPLAY var is set or not andn then possible testing it.  It should has used the value :0 I sent it and do some X11 stuff I am not aware of.


I intented on interating through files in /tmp/.X11-unix/* looking for an active X11 server, but checkX doesn't seem to fit the bill.

Do I have to just manually set DISPLAY and try to run a program that relies on it, since checkX doesn't work by telling me a server can be use, when it can be.



------------

Cheers

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: checkX problem or misunderstanding

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

On 8/3/2013 4:54 AM, wynfield@gmail.com wrote:
> Re: checkX
>
>    $ checkX --version
>      run2 0.4.2
>
> checkX doesn't work as I understand the description below:
>
> "DESCRIPTION
>         Determines  if  X is installed, Xserver is running on specified DISPLAY
>         and will accept clients. Returns 0 if yes, nonzero otherwise"
>
>
> Environment / Procedure to duplicate the error:
>
>   - I have an X11 server running, started in pty0, where I will test checkX
>
>   - In this pty0, I start an X11 server, which from the xinitrc starts up another mintty
>      terminal, pty1 with Display environment variable set to :0
>
>   - Testing checkX in pty1 (which has DISPLAY set) returns a 0 or successful result.
>     checkX :0  --> returns 0
>
>   - Moving back to pty0 and running the same command with the same argument gives:
>     checkX :0  --> return 1 and error condition or no server available.
>
>
> However, if I simply manually set DISPLAY=:0 in pty0   X11 clients will run.
>
> -  export DISPLAY=127.0.0.1:0
> -  checkX :0  --> Nnw reports an o.k. this server is useable.
>
> If one relied on checkX the runing server would be missed.  It is doing
> nothing that a check if DISPLAY var is set or not andn then possible
> testing it.  It should has used the value :0 I sent it and do some X11
> stuff I am not aware of.

Perhaps we're misunderstanding your confusion here.  Can you explain what
about Chuck's description of checkX at the link below isn't clear?

<http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2013-08/msg00009.html>


-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: checkX problem or misunderstanding

[wynfield]

Larry Hall wrote:
> > Re: checkX
> >
> >    $ checkX --version
> >      run2 0.4.2
> >
> > checkX doesn't work as I understand the description below:
> >
> > "DESCRIPTION
> >         Determines  if  X is installed, Xserver is running on specified DISPLAY
> >         and will accept clients. Returns 0 if yes, nonzero otherwise"
> >
> >
> > Environment / Procedure to duplicate the error:
> >
> >   - I have an X11 server running, started in pty0, where I will test checkX
> >
> >   - In this pty0, I start an X11 server, which from the xinitrc starts up another mintty
> >      terminal, pty1 with Display environment variable set to :0
> >
> >   - Testing checkX in pty1 (which has DISPLAY set) returns a 0 or successful result.
> >     checkX :0  --> returns 0
> >
> >   - Moving back to pty0 and running the same command with the same argument gives:
> >     checkX :0  --> return 1 and error condition or no server available.
> >
> >
> > However, if I simply manually set DISPLAY=:0 in pty0   X11 clients will run.
> >
> > -  export DISPLAY=127.0.0.1:0
> > -  checkX :0  --> Nnw reports an o.k. this server is useable.
> >
> > If one relied on checkX the runing server would be missed.  It is doing
> > nothing that a check if DISPLAY var is set or not andn then possible
> > testing it.  It should has used the value :0 I sent it and do some X11
> > stuff I am not aware of.
> 
> Perhaps we're misunderstanding your confusion here.  Can you explain what
> about Chuck's description of checkX at the link below isn't clear?
> 
> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2013-08/msg00009.html>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Larry

It is clearly written in my message, in fact in imported it from the checkX documentation. What part of the problem I'm describing is not clear to you?

"DESCRIPTION
         Determines  if  X is installed, Xserver is running on specified DISPLAY
         and will accept clients. Returns 0 if yes, nonzero otherwise""

In fact:
  checkX  :0   returns a false when, but the X11 server on :0 will accept client requests.

Exporting DISPLAY=:0 and running emacs, for example, demonstrates that X11 is available and accepting clients.


> _____________________________________________________________________
end.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: checkX problem or misunderstanding

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

On 8/4/2013 9:50 PM, wynfield@gmail.com wrote:
> Larry Hall wrote:
>>> Re: checkX
>>>
>>>     $ checkX --version
>>>       run2 0.4.2
>>>
>>> checkX doesn't work as I understand the description below:
>>>
>>> "DESCRIPTION
>>>          Determines  if  X is installed, Xserver is running on specified DISPLAY
>>>          and will accept clients. Returns 0 if yes, nonzero otherwise"
>>>
>>>
>>> Environment / Procedure to duplicate the error:
>>>
>>>    - I have an X11 server running, started in pty0, where I will test checkX
>>>
>>>    - In this pty0, I start an X11 server, which from the xinitrc starts up another mintty
>>>       terminal, pty1 with Display environment variable set to :0
>>>
>>>    - Testing checkX in pty1 (which has DISPLAY set) returns a 0 or successful result.
>>>      checkX :0  --> returns 0
>>>
>>>    - Moving back to pty0 and running the same command with the same argument gives:
>>>      checkX :0  --> return 1 and error condition or no server available.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, if I simply manually set DISPLAY=:0 in pty0   X11 clients will run.
>>>
>>> -  export DISPLAY=127.0.0.1:0
>>> -  checkX :0  --> Nnw reports an o.k. this server is useable.
>>>
>>> If one relied on checkX the runing server would be missed.  It is doing
>>> nothing that a check if DISPLAY var is set or not andn then possible
>>> testing it.  It should has used the value :0 I sent it and do some X11
>>> stuff I am not aware of.
>>
>> Perhaps we're misunderstanding your confusion here.  Can you explain what
>> about Chuck's description of checkX at the link below isn't clear?
>>
>> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2013-08/msg00009.html>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Larry
>
> It is clearly written in my message, in fact in imported it from the
> checkX documentation. What part of the problem I'm describing is not clear
> to you?
>
> "DESCRIPTION
>           Determines  if  X is installed, Xserver is running on specified DISPLAY
>           and will accept clients. Returns 0 if yes, nonzero otherwise""
>
> In fact:
>    checkX :0 returns a false when, but the X11 server on :0 will accept client
> requests.

I guess I'm not clear why you're not using the syntax Chuck recommends in
his message (see the link to it that I included above).  He stated you need
to use the '--display' flag.  Here's a quote from Chuck in that message:

>> You have to tell IT where you think the X server is running, and it
>> willtell you if it can contact a server there. So:
>>
>> $ checkX --display=127.0.0.1:0.0
>> [exits with status value 0 or 1]
>>

So, does that syntax work as Chuck described it?

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: checkX problem or misunderstanding

[Charles Wilson]

On 8/4/2013 10:24 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 8/4/2013 9:50 PM, wynf... wrote:
>> It is clearly written in my message, in fact in imported it from the
>> checkX documentation. What part of the problem I'm describing is not
>> clear
>> to you?
>>
>> "DESCRIPTION
>>           Determines  if  X is installed, Xserver is running on
>> specified DISPLAY
>>           and will accept clients. Returns 0 if yes, nonzero otherwise""
>>
>> In fact:
>>    checkX :0 returns a false when, but the X11 server on :0 will
>> accept client
>> requests.
>
> I guess I'm not clear why you're not using the syntax Chuck recommends in
> his message (see the link to it that I included above).  He stated you need
> to use the '--display' flag.  Here's a quote from Chuck in that message:

To be fair, checkX *should* use the $DISPLAY variable if --display/-d is 
not specified on the command line.  This appears, from reading the email 
thread, to be a real issue.

However, I won't be able to investigate further for at least a 
week...and will have only intermittent internet access until then.

--
Chuck


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: checkX problem or misunderstanding

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 11:11:13PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>However, I won't be able to investigate further for at least a 
>week...and will have only intermittent internet access until then.

So that may be as many as *two* Thursdays then.

Presumably you're going to be looking for just the right cat.

Just setting expectations.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: checkX problem or misunderstanding

[d.henman]

Update:

   checkX  does work of course.

My problem was:
     1. I was setting the DISPLAY environment variable which X11 based clients use
        and expected checkX to use it as well.

     2. I specified the X11 server to try, incorrectly as $ checkX  127.0.0.1:0, without
        the -d option.  For some reason I had it in my head that usage was: 
         checkX [options]  <server>. 

     	Hower, checkX works when server is specified with the -d option as documented.
        E.g. $  checkX -d 127.0.0.1:0

  THanks for the input to help me find this.  My apologies for not spotting this sooner. 

Regards,

Charles Wilson
> On 8/4/2013 10:24 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> > On 8/4/2013 9:50 PM, wynf... wrote:
> >> It is clearly written in my message, in fact in imported it from the
> >> checkX documentation. What part of the problem I'm describing is not
> >> clear
> >> to you?
> >>
> >> "DESCRIPTION
> >>           Determines  if  X is installed, Xserver is running on
> >> specified DISPLAY
> >>           and will accept clients. Returns 0 if yes, nonzero otherwise""
> >>
> >> In fact:
> >>    checkX :0 returns a false when, but the X11 server on :0 will
> >> accept client
> >> requests.
> >
> > I guess I'm not clear why you're not using the syntax Chuck recommends in
> > his message (see the link to it that I included above).  He stated you need
> > to use the '--display' flag.  Here's a quote from Chuck in that message:
> 
> To be fair, checkX *should* use the $DISPLAY variable if --display/-d
> is not specified on the command line.  This appears, from reading the
> email thread, to be a real issue.
> 
> However, I won't be able to investigate further for at least a
> week...and will have only intermittent internet access until then.
> 
> --
> Chuck
> 

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: checkX problem or misunderstanding

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  4 23:37, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 11:11:13PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >However, I won't be able to investigate further for at least a 
> >week...and will have only intermittent internet access until then.
> 
> So that may be as many as *two* Thursdays then.
> 
> Presumably you're going to be looking for just the right cat.

Maybe Chuck is a dog-type...

> Just setting expectations.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: checkX problem or misunderstanding

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:14:09AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Aug  4 23:37, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 11:11:13PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> >However, I won't be able to investigate further for at least a 
>> >week...and will have only intermittent internet access until then.
>> 
>> So that may be as many as *two* Thursdays then.
>> 
>> Presumably you're going to be looking for just the right cat.
>
>Maybe Chuck is a dog-type...

Sigh.  Just when I thought I understood the parameters.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple