On 7-1-2015 07:08, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> One of the recent improvements to startxwin was that it would now find
> an available $DISPLAY itself, just like startx does. Using
> -silent-dup-error doesn't do that; think of the case where another
> user on the same system has started an X server fi
On 5-1-2015 19:17, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2015-01-05 11:43, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>> On 2015-01-05 05:46, Laurens Blankers wrote:
>>> [..]
>>> 1. Handling of empty .startxwinrc
>>> [..]
>>
>> And what if it's not zero-length
On 5-1-2015 18:31, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> Wait, are you talking about a Windows version of PuTTY?
There is a PuTTY for *nix? And it has been ported to Cygwin? I didn't
know. That is, let's say, amazing :-) Yes I mean the native PuTTY for
Windows.
> This will be added to the FAQ in due course.
Hi,
As requested [1] a separate thread for suggesting improvements to xinit,
in order to solve some of the issues people have been having since the
release of 1.3.4-1 [2].
1. Handling of empty .startxwinrc
Given the new behaviour of startxwin having an empty is never a correct
configuration. It w
When using PuTTY with X11 forwarding enabled X clients are no longer
able to connect to the X server running locally. When reverting back to
1.3.2-1 the problem goes away.
This may be related to the -nolisten tcp which is now the default[1]. If
this is indeed the case it would be create of adding
On 5-1-2015 10:48, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> Just .startxwinrc, and the changes were explained in the announcement.
The information is contained within the announcement, but it is a bit
difficult to figure out what to do from just the list of changes. A more
detailed step-by-step guide, preferably
On 5-1-2015 05:04, Larry Hall (Cygwin-X) wrote:
> So I'm guessing with your statement above that English isn't your primary
> language.
> [..]
> 1. I am not the maintainer of the xinit package. [..]
English is indeed not my first language, but that is no excuse for not
carefully reading your repl
On 2015-01-04 00:02, Larry Hall (Cygwin-X) wrote:
The fact that the recent
changes interfere with previous usage is an issue that needs attention
for
sure but reverting, while the maintainer's call, just trades misbehaviour
in the eyes of one group for that of the other.
That may be true, but
On 3-1-2015 04:48, Larry Hall (Cygwin-X) wrote:
> But the functionality in the latest release of the xinit corrects some
> long-standing Cygwin incompatibilities with startx, so there's
> no benefit to turning back as a strategy.
This is exactly why I have such hard time convincing people that usin
On 2-1-2015 21:10, schilpfamily wrote:
> this has worked for years, now when i run this command, a window very
> briefly blinks into existence but then goes away. any idea why this
> would stop working now?
This is most likely due to a major rewrite of the xinit package which
contains all start-up
On 30-12-2014 17:04, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
> The same you can do with the link created as suggested in my previous
> replay.
You are probably right, but again, that is not the issue. The point I am
trying to make is that breaking configurations which have worked for
many years in a patch release i
On 30-12-2014 13:46, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
> What about changing the way X server is started?
I could change the way I start X, and I have successfully gotten things
to work by doing so. But that is not my point. My point is that I need
to make significant changes to the configuration to get back
bly will. I do appreciate all the time that everyone, and not in
the least Yaakov, invests into maintaining Cygwin/X. However as a user
and software engineer myself I also very much appreciate systems
continuing to function after minor upgrades.
Sincerely,
Laurens Blankers
--
Unsubscribe info:
13 matches
Mail list logo
