From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465816FF78 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Dec 2015 04:32:05 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,413,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="839193128" Received: from kanavin-desktop.fi.intel.com (HELO [10.237.68.161]) ([10.237.68.161]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Dec 2015 04:32:03 -0800 To: Tom Hochstein References: <1449001866-29286-1-git-send-email-tom.hochstein@freescale.com> <60070.10.252.17.232.1449008484.squirrel@linux.intel.com> <56659548.8090509@linux.intel.com> From: Alexander Kanavin Message-ID: <566AC1B4.9050508@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:29:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Cc: Sundararaj Prabhu , Otavio Salvador , "openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] weston-init: Use weston-launch for XWayland X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:32:17 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/11/2015 01:44 AM, Tom Hochstein wrote: > # There are multiple ways to start weston. > if [ "$WAYLAND_DISPLAY" ]; then > echo -e "\aError: Weston is already running." > echo "This script does not support launching Weston nested." > exit 1 > else if [ "$DISPLAY" ]; then > echo "Launching Weston with the x11 backend" > openvt -s weston -- --log=/var/log/weston.log $OPTARGS > else > echo "Launching Weston with the DRM backend" > export XDG_CONFIG_HOME=/etc > openvt -v -- weston-launch -- --log=/var/log/weston.log $OPTARGS > fi > > I still need to test this (and apply the design in systemd), but I wanted your feedback on the approach. I think this looks okay, but you obviously need to test that all three scenarios works as expected. Also, systemd unit file language may not support this logic (it's not a full programming language), so the above snippet probably needs to be separated into a wrapper script. Alex