[comp.windows.x] XDMCP questions

dwig@b11.ingr.com (David Wiggins) (03/09/90)

I'm trying to get xdm running on System 5 with BSD extensions.

Our BSDisms are extensive enough that we can compile the entire os/4.2bsd
directory almost without modification - the minor exception being changing
"MIN" to "min" in xdmcp.c.  (This info provided in case it affects the
anwer to my first question.)

Questions:

Why is the call to WaitForSomething ifdef'ed out for SYSV in the R4 xdm?
Is their some fundamental problem with supporting XDMCP on System 5 that
I should be aware of?

There appears to be no code to perform byte-swapping for XDMCP in the server
or xdm.  (Our machines are little-endian, and XDMCP requires big-endian.)
Should I take the time to add it, or is someone else doing this?

Is there any reason why the execute() function was not used in place of
execve() in xdm/session.c?  The ExecableScripts configuration parameter
might be useful here.

By the way, who should one contact regarding problems with the xstuff server?

Thanks for any response!

David P. Wiggins	dwig@ingr.com  or  uunet!ingr!dwig	(205)730-6365
Intergraph Corporation, One Madison Industrial Park, Huntsville, AL 35807

keith@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Keith Packard) (03/10/90)

> Why is the call to WaitForSomething ifdef'ed out for SYSV in the R4 xdm?
> Is their some fundamental problem with supporting XDMCP on System 5 that
> I should be aware of?

Not really; I didn't spend the time to port it.  SYSV isn't exactly a fun
debugging environment.  I don't envision any real problems except those
with SYSV signals; xdm does some crufty things which may get botched with
unreliable signal handling.  Perhaps someone with experience using SYSV
reliable signals could perform the necessary changes.

> There appears to be no code to perform byte-swapping for XDMCP in the server
> or xdm.

The XDMCP implementation provided with R4 is byte-order independent; it
will work correctly on both big-endian and little-endian machines

> Is there any reason why the execute() function was not used in place of
> execve() in xdm/session.c?

No there isn't -- in fact the execute function was written to be used in
exactly those places, somehow it was never set up correctly (whoops!).

Keith Packard
MIT X Consortium