Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:44:45 +0200 From: Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> To: Daniel O'Connor <darius@dons.net.au>, "xfce@freebsd.org" <xfce@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: XFCE terminal + utempter Message-ID: <b1dff10f-53e5-3b08-31fe-6a5c7b06fbab@madpilot.net> In-Reply-To: <C1C41EFF-C599-4BC2-83A5-F82704A66026@dons.net.au> References: <C1C41EFF-C599-4BC2-83A5-F82704A66026@dons.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20/04/21 04:56, Daniel O'Connor via freebsd-xfce wrote: > Hi, > I had to recompile xfce4-terminal for a client because they weren't getting UPS notifications (via wall) - I had to add '--with-utempter' to 'CONFIGURE_ARGS'. While I understand the need this looks like an ancient way of doing such things. Also if I have ten terminal windows open I'd get ten notifications? > > This system is a bit old but it seems the current port does not have that flag either (although I am not sure if perhaps it would be auto detected in the latest ports). > > If it isn't picked up, can the flag be added to the port? With that done it because a user configuration item (defaults to off though it seems). It is not automatically detected. Upstream has the flag off by default and the port is simply leaving it there. Just looking at the xfce4-terminal configure file I'm not sure how you got it working though, since the configure file does not look for the correct library on FreeBSD. ( at least according to utempter_add_record(3) ) Please notice I am not an expert on utmp/wtmp/utmpx and such so I'm not sure of the implications right away, I need research to get a clear understanding. Anyway I can do some testing, but I'd rather avoid any default behaviour changes, so I'd evaluate adding this as an option turned off by default. -- Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b1dff10f-53e5-3b08-31fe-6a5c7b06fbab>