[PATCH] xfree86: Allow a config directory for multiple config files

[Ping]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Dan Nicholson <dbn.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it will work the way you envision, but with the caveat that
> there isn't any parsing of ~/.xorg.conf and never has been. After
> that, it would work similarly to how you describe. xorg.conf is parsed
> first and then the xorg.conf.d files are parsed afterwards, but their
> contents are all mashed into one configuration structure. There is no
> on-the-fly parsing of config files, but there doesn't need to be.
> Earlier matches take precedence, so if the input device is fully
> specified in xorg.conf, nothing happening in xorg.conf.d would have
> any effect.
>

Sounds very reasonable.  My concern was it looked to me like that you have
to manually disable the options in xorg.conf if there is a local/custom/user
defined (whatever you call it :) .conf file.  So, my suggestion was to
disable everything else after the first .conf is used by default.  Sorry for
my misunderstanding.  You are doing exactly the way that I'd like it to be
except I thought we want to process xorg.conf.d before xorg.conf.  But, your
approach makes more sense since it follows the old HAL way.

Another thing that I'd like to make sure I understand it correctly is:  we
can define just a few sections, such as just one InputDevice section,
without defining anything else in xorg.conf, and X server will start without
problem.  That is, the default drivers will catch all undefined devices by
default.


> Speaking about the InputClass patches that would allow hal-style
> attribute matching, this is how I would envision it working. If you
> have the wacom driver installed, you'll also xorg.conf.d/50-wacom.conf
> installed, which would set Driver for the devices it cared about.


How are we going to specify two identical devices, two tablets in my case,
with different options in xorg.conf.d/50-wacom.conf?  This has been a
request from a few of my customers with HAL approach.  I had to make them
use xorg.conf and the specific udev rules.  Will this be the same for the
new approach?  I hope we have a more "dummy" friendly hotplugging solution
for them.  It would also make my job easier.

Thank you, Dan, for your effort no matter where we get :).

Ping
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20091214/f5fa2832/attachment-0001.htm