Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should clx try to open an abstract socket? #163

Open
scymtym opened this issue Feb 26, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

Should clx try to open an abstract socket? #163

scymtym opened this issue Feb 26, 2020 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@scymtym
Copy link
Member

scymtym commented Feb 26, 2020

This conversation as well as this one suggests that it is sometimes not possible to establish a connection to the "ordinary" UNIX socket at e.g. /tmp/.X11-unix/X0 or wherever the X server listens.

In the above cases, it turned out that the socket name wasn't wrong, but that the socket was of the abstract type, not the pathname type.

Maybe clx should try opening the socket using the pathname type and fall back to trying the abstract type. For SBCL, this translates to (make-instance 'sb-bsd-sockets:local-socket) and (make-instance 'sb-bsd-sockets:local-abstract-socket) respectively. I'm sure other implementations support this as well (if nothing else, it should be possible to stick a #\0 into the path as described in the man-page).

@scymtym scymtym changed the title Should clx try to open an abstract socket Should clx try to open an abstract socket? Feb 26, 2020
@scymtym scymtym self-assigned this Feb 26, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant