There is an AUR package called xwinfo (repo), which seems similar (equivalent?) to xwininfo. When installing SteamTinkerLaunch, if ProtonUp-Qt can't find which xwininfo, instead of using this name, displays the xwininfo dependency name as xwinfo. Even if xwinfo is installed it will not return anything for which xwininfo, as its command name is xwinfo. SteamTinkerLaunch also expects to find a command xwininfo, it is not compatible with xwinfo. It could be possible for SteamTinkerLaunch to use xwinfo if it is truly equivalent to xwininfo, but I'd honestly rather stick to official packages only for a dependency like this.
This PR fixes the SteamTinkerLaunch dependencies screen to now show xwininfo as the dependency name instead of xwinfo. We even run host_which('xwininfo'). Not sure why we used xwinfo back then, but I don't think there's any strong reason to keep it :-)
So while the package name alone is not a huge issue, it's the fact that xwinfo uses the command name xwinfo instead of xwininfo. Phew! Hope that makes sense.
Thanks. Should make it also more clear for other distros that don't use that AUR package name, googeling that command should yield a name of the packet for your distribution.
FIxes #300.
There is an AUR package called
xwinfo
(repo), which seems similar (equivalent?) toxwininfo
. When installing SteamTinkerLaunch, if ProtonUp-Qt can't findwhich xwininfo
, instead of using this name, displays thexwininfo
dependency name asxwinfo
. Even ifxwinfo
is installed it will not return anything forwhich xwininfo
, as its command name isxwinfo
. SteamTinkerLaunch also expects to find a commandxwininfo
, it is not compatible withxwinfo
. It could be possible for SteamTinkerLaunch to usexwinfo
if it is truly equivalent toxwininfo
, but I'd honestly rather stick to official packages only for a dependency like this.This PR fixes the SteamTinkerLaunch dependencies screen to now show
xwininfo
as the dependency name instead ofxwinfo
. We even runhost_which('xwininfo')
. Not sure why we usedxwinfo
back then, but I don't think there's any strong reason to keep it :-)So while the package name alone is not a huge issue, it's the fact that
xwinfo
uses the command namexwinfo
instead ofxwininfo
. Phew! Hope that makes sense.Thanks!