[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#434863: Bug#434863: xfce4-terminal: Wrapper script seems broken

[Yves-Alexis Perez]

On lun, 2008-03-03 at 23:34 +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:03:40 +0100
> Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac at debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > I tried launching `xfce4-terminal --disable-server' (having been hinted to a
> > > dbus-related problem by your mail) and the terminal blocks the calling one.
> > > Yay!
> > > 
> > > Still, is this the way it is supposed to work?
> > 
> > Well, yes it is. This is a remote interface, so you dont run yet another
> > xfce4-terminal instance. So as soon as the job is finished, it closes. That's
> > not a fork at all.
> 
> You're right, it's not a fork in the background.
> But the effect is the same to the user.

Not really, but I won't argue with you on that.
> 
> > > I think it needs at least to be well documented, since I don't think I'm the
> > > only one who wants to use xfce4-terminal to launch vim in its mail client.
> > 
> > HMmh, the --help talks about this option. I'll add a note in README.Debian for
> > the next package revision.
>  
> The --help output talks about the option, but the description is far from
> being clear. "Do not register with the D-BUS session message bus" doesn't
> ring any bell in my opinion.

That's why I added it to README.Debian.
> 
> I still think the wrapper script should be fixed.
> 
> It's perfectly fine for xfce4-terminal to have its own way to reduce startup
> times, and I appreciate it; but he wrapper script (correct me if I'm wrong)
> is meant to give an uniform interface to all the terminal emulators, and all
> except xfce4-terminal wait for the window to close before returning.

You're wrong. xfce4-terminal.wrapper is a useless wrapper wich nobody
use, I guess. I didn't even remember we shipped it, nor why. And anyway,
not all terminal behave the same, so there's nothing to be expected
(except basic options).
> 
> Why not just add the --disable-server option in the call at the end of
> xfce4-terminal.wrapper? That would be the trick, and I can't think of any
> negative side-effect, eccept maybe longer starting times.
> For what it's worth, I've been using that command line inside Sylpheed for
> months without noticing any.

Well, you end up with lots of xfce4-terminal. Wich is something use may
want, or may not. Default behavior is not this one, so we won't add this
by default. But feel free to tune your configuration on your system.

Wrt xfce4-terminal.wrapper, I don't know why it's still here, but you
should use xfce4-terminal directly. Now that I know it's here, it may
not be shipped in future version of the package.

Cheers,
-- 
Yves-Alexis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xfce-devel/attachments/20080303/ffd1d799/attachment.pgp