Subject: Notification: incoming/54

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:33:17 -0600 (CST)

FVWM Bug Tracking notification

new message incoming/54

Message summary for PR#54
	From: [email-masked]
	Subject: Keybindings
	Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:33:16 -0600 (CST)
	0 replies 	0 followups

====> ORIGINAL MESSAGE FOLLOWS <====

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 13:58:49 -0500

[email-masked] writes:
> >From [email-masked]  Mon Dec  7 12:33:17 1998
> Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> 	by larry.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA06190
> 	for <[email-masked]>; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:33:16 -0600 (CST)
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Keybindings
> 
> Full_Name: Tomas Ögren
> Version: cvs
> CVS_Date: 18:30 MET, today
> OS: Solaris 2.6
> X_Server: Xsun
> Submission from: (NULL) (130.239.117.83)
> 
> 
> Key Return      A       CS      Exec exec xterm &
> Key Delete      A       CS      Exec exec xterm &
> 
> The C-S-Return thing works everywhere. The one with delete isn't catched
> (and used) if above a window, only at the root-window... Instead, the
> delete is sent like some weirdo-delete to the app... (the input-window in
> motif totally freaks out)... Sorry, don't have xev near to try.. I'll go
> find it later..

Both bindings work for me with 2.1.4 on Sun Solaris  2.6 with a type 4
keyboard.

I think you  want to look at  this with xev.   Its  possible that your
Delete key with the  control-shift modifier generates something  other
than "Delete".

Note that "Exec exec" is overkill, and the trailing ampersand is
unnecessary.

> --

--
Dan Espen                                Phone: (732) 699-5570
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 07 Dec 1998 15:09:44 -0500

%% Dan Espen <[email-masked]> writes:

  de> Note that "Exec exec" is overkill, and the trailing ampersand is
  de> unnecessary.

Actually, while the trailing ampersand seems to be unnecessary, you need
the "Exec exec".

This changed back and forth a couple of times in the 2.0.41 era, but
ultimately it's back where it started: Exec runs a shell, so if you
don't want the shell hanging around, too, you need to use "exec".  There
was talk of creating a new option like "RExec" or something that
didn't require the initial exec, but nothing ever cam of that that I
know of.

Try it out; if you use:

  + "Test1" Exec xterm

you'll see this:

     UID   PID  PPID  C    STIME TTY      TIME CMD
  psmith   364   362  0   Dec 03 console  0:19 fvwm2
  psmith 28217   364  0 14:51:26 console  0:00 /bin/sh -c xterm
    root 28218 28217  0 14:51:26 console  0:00 xterm

But if you use:

  + "Test2" Exec exec xterm

You'll see this:

     UID   PID  PPID  C    STIME TTY      TIME CMD
  psmith   364   362  0   Dec 03 console  0:19 fvwm2
    root 28184   364  0 14:50:03 console  0:00 xterm

Also, all the examples in the manual use both execs _and_ the ampersand;
is the latter necessary for some reason?  I don't use it and don't miss
it... but am I missing something?  If not the man page should be updated.

OK, I just tried it and if you have the ampersand, regardless of whether
you use the exec or not, the xterm is reparented to init (because it's
put into the background, then its parent dies or is exec'd out) instead
of fvwm... which is probably not what you want but I don't know.  Also,
this is what happens with my shell (bash); it's possible other shells
don't behave well when trying to exit with background processes running
(csh in particular--does anyone set ExecUseSHELL to csh?).  All in all,
I think the ampersand should go.  Other thoughts?

Also, the "Exec" section of the man page doesn't explain this very well;
that should be changed, too.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Tim Phipps <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 09:13:42 +0000

>From FvwmConsole: Exec xterm gives me the following:

     tim  9684 22415  0 13:28:59 pts/6    0:06 fvwm2 -cmd FvwmCpp -Cppprog
/usr/ccs/lib/cpp .X/Fvwm2rc
     tim 23537  9684  0 08:44:34 pts/6    0:00 xterm
     tim 23541 23537  0 08:44:34 pts/30   0:00 /home/tim/bin/bash

What is happening here is that I have ExecUseShell set and use bash. bash is a bit
more intelligent than /bin/sh when it gets invoked with -c args.  If the "-c
command" is a simple command bash just execs it, if there are ;|& type chars it
works like sh.

The extra shell process is not really Fvwm's problem. If it bugs you enough use a
better shell.  I agree that the documentation should be cleaned up.

Cheers,
Tim.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 10:56:28 +0100

> that should be changed, too.

Well, just put it in the 'doc bug' directory in Jitterbug ;-)

Dominik
-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 08 Dec 1998 12:01:37 -0500

%% Tim Phipps <[email-masked]> writes:

  tp> What is happening here is that I have ExecUseShell set and use
  tp> bash. bash is a bit more intelligent than /bin/sh when it gets
  tp> invoked with -c args.  If the "-c command" is a simple command
  tp> bash just execs it, if there are ;|& type chars it works like sh.

  tp> The extra shell process is not really Fvwm's problem. If it bugs
  tp> you enough use a better shell.  I agree that the documentation
  tp> should be cleaned up.

It doesn't bug me at all, because I don't see the problem, because I use
"exec".  Note that "exec" will work with bash, too.

And in fact, I _DO_ use bash as my user shell.  But I use /bin/sh to
spawn fvwm (and other) scripts because bash is too big and slow for such
a simple task.

My only points are that (a) we shouldn't tell people to not use exec,
because they _should_ use exec--if they're clueful enough to know they
don't strictly need exec due to their shell, then they wouldn't be
asking us anyway, and (b) it _IS_ fvwm's problem insofar as the
documentation provides numerous examples of this, and it behooves us to
make sure it's correct (remove the ampersand) and at least give a nod to
it under the Exec section.

I'll take a stab at fixing the man page.