The target has not seen the guest_connected event via
spice_chr_guest_open or spice_chr_write, and so spice server wrongly
assumes there is no agent active, while the client continues to send
motion events only by the agent channel, which the server ignores. The
net effect is that the mouse is
Hi,
On 03/14/2013 04:12 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
The target has not seen the guest_connected event via
spice_chr_guest_open or spice_chr_write, and so spice server wrongly
assumes there is no agent active, while the client continues to send
motion events only by the agent channel, which the server
Hi,
On 03/14/2013 04:12 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
The target has not seen the guest_connected event via
spice_chr_guest_open or spice_chr_write, and so spice server
wrongly
assumes there is no agent active, while the client continues to
send
motion events only by the agent channel,
On (Mon) 24 Dec 2012 [13:09:20], Amit Shah wrote:
On (Sun) 23 Dec 2012 [23:35:29], Alon Levy wrote:
The target has not seen the guest_connected event via
spice_chr_guest_open or spice_chr_write, and so spice server wrongly
assumes there is no agent active, while the client continues to send
The target has not seen the guest_connected event via
spice_chr_guest_open or spice_chr_write, and so spice server wrongly
assumes there is no agent active, while the client continues to send
motion events only by the agent channel, which the server ignores. The
net effect is that the mouse is
On (Sun) 23 Dec 2012 [23:35:29], Alon Levy wrote:
The target has not seen the guest_connected event via
spice_chr_guest_open or spice_chr_write, and so spice server wrongly
assumes there is no agent active, while the client continues to send
motion events only by the agent channel, which the
