Bug#195845: acknowledged by developer (Bug#195845: fixed in xfree86 4.2.1-10)

2003-08-21 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:47:51PM +0200, Frank Murphy wrote: > I felt that the second part "If a program or failsafe argument was given and > > is allowed (see above), it is used instead" was also unclear about what > "it" is used instead, the argument or the .Xsession. > > Also, in the s

Bug#195845: acknowledged by developer (Bug#195845: fixed in xfree86 4.2.1-10)

2003-08-21 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:47:51PM +0200, Frank Murphy wrote: > I felt that the second part "If a program or failsafe argument was given and > is allowed (see above), it is used instead" was also unclear about what > "it" is used instead, the argument or the .Xsession. > > Also, in the seco

Bug#195845: acknowledged by developer (Bug#195845: fixed in xfree86 4.2.1-10)

2003-08-21 Thread Frank Murphy
On Thursday 21 August 2003 11:06, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:22:47PM +0200, Frank Murphy wrote: > > I saw that this bug had been marked fixed, so I went to try it out, but > > it seemed not to be fixed. So I checked out the new scripts and the > > manpages, and I think may

Bug#195845: acknowledged by developer (Bug#195845: fixed in xfree86 4.2.1-10)

2003-08-21 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:22:47PM +0200, Frank Murphy wrote: > I saw that this bug had been marked fixed, so I went to try it out, but it > seemed not to be fixed. So I checked out the new scripts and the manpages, > and I think maybe it was my confusion about what was supposed to happen. > > I

Bug#195845: acknowledged by developer (Bug#195845: fixed in xfree86 4.2.1-10)

2003-08-21 Thread Frank Murphy
On Thursday 21 August 2003 11:06, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:22:47PM +0200, Frank Murphy wrote: > > I saw that this bug had been marked fixed, so I went to try it out, but > > it seemed not to be fixed. So I checked out the new scripts and the > > manpages, and I think may

Bug#195845: acknowledged by developer (Bug#195845: fixed in xfree86 4.2.1-10)

2003-08-21 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:22:47PM +0200, Frank Murphy wrote: > I saw that this bug had been marked fixed, so I went to try it out, but it > seemed not to be fixed. So I checked out the new scripts and the manpages, > and I think maybe it was my confusion about what was supposed to happen. > > I

Bug#195845: acknowledged by developer (Bug#195845: fixed in xfree86 4.2.1-10)

2003-08-21 Thread Frank Murphy
I saw that this bug had been marked fixed, so I went to try it out, but it seemed not to be fixed. So I checked out the new scripts and the manpages, and I think maybe it was my confusion about what was supposed to happen. It seems that if a program is specified as the startup program, no user

Bug#195845: acknowledged by developer (Bug#195845: fixed in xfree86 4.2.1-10)

2003-08-21 Thread Frank Murphy
I saw that this bug had been marked fixed, so I went to try it out, but it seemed not to be fixed. So I checked out the new scripts and the manpages, and I think maybe it was my confusion about what was supposed to happen. It seems that if a program is specified as the startup program, no user