On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:59:56PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:39:14AM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 13:25 (+0100), Dominik Vogt wrote:
> ...
> > > Can you please try out the branch "dv/fix-cr-merging" tha I've
> > > just pushed and
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 21:59 (+0100), Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:39:14AM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 13:25 (+0100), Dominik Vogt wrote:
> ...
>>> Can you please try out the branch "dv/fix-cr-merging" tha I've
>>> just pushed and see if
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:39:14AM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 13:25 (+0100), Dominik Vogt wrote:
...
> > Can you please try out the branch "dv/fix-cr-merging" tha I've
> > just pushed and see if the fix works for you? (For me, it does.)
>
> And it does for me.
2016-10-23 17:05 GMT+02:00 Dominik Vogt :
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 04:39:53PM +0200, Viktor Griph wrote:
>> Den 23 okt. 2016 14:36 skrev "Dominik Vogt" :
>> > void fev_sanitise_configure_request(XConfigureRequestEvent *cr)
>> > {
>> >
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 04:10:25PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 04:05:03PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > I never can remember this; is it safe (in C) to assume that
> > negative integers are stored in two-complement format? (Of course
> > the old code makes the same
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 04:05:03PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> I never can remember this; is it safe (in C) to assume that
> negative integers are stored in two-complement format? (Of course
> the old code makes the same assumtion, but it's broken and I want
> to fix it.)
It is not safe to make
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 04:39:53PM +0200, Viktor Griph wrote:
> Den 23 okt. 2016 14:36 skrev "Dominik Vogt" :
> > void fev_sanitise_configure_request(XConfigureRequestEvent *cr)
> > {
> > if (cr->value_mask & CWX)
> > {
> >
Den 23 okt. 2016 14:36 skrev "Dominik Vogt" :
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 07:56:31PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 23:29 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 07:26:50PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca
wrote:
> > >> On
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 13:25 (+0100), Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 07:56:31PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 23:29 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 07:26:50PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 01:36:03PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 08:36:10PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 00:20 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 07:56:31PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> > >> I cloned
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 08:36:10PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 00:20 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 07:56:31PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> >> I cloned the git version about 15 minutes ago and compiled it, and
> >> acroread
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 02:44 (+0100), Dominik Vogt wrote:
> As a little bit of explanation how to read this output:
Thanks for the tutorial!
>> cre: 935(1) 0(2) 985(0)x1080(0) fw 0x00401005 w 0x06200031 ew 0x06200031
>> 'Adobe Reader'
>^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^
> X
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:51:52AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:13:59AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > I'm now trying to identify the commit with which this strange
> > placement started. Do you know of any other commit ids or dates
> > between 2.6.5 and 2.6.6 that were
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:13:59AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> I'm now trying to identify the commit with which this strange
> placement started. Do you know of any other commit ids or dates
> between 2.6.5 and 2.6.6 that were definitely fine or broken?
Whoever ends up doing this, should use
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 02:23 (+0100), Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:00:16PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 01:21 (+0100), Dominik Vogt wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 08:36:10PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016
As a little bit of explanation how to read this output:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:00:16PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> cre: 935(1) 0(2) 985(0)x1080(0) fw 0x00401005 w 0x06200031 ew 0x06200031
> 'Adobe Reader'
^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^
X Y Width
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:00:16PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 01:21 (+0100), Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 08:36:10PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 00:20 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, Oct
- Forwarded message from zli...@ns.sympatico.ca -
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 22:00:16 -0300
From: zli...@ns.sympatico.ca
To: Dominik Vogt <dominik.v...@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: regression from 2.6.5 to 2.6.6 ?
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 01:21 (+0100), D
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 08:36:10PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 00:20 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 07:56:31PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> >> I cloned the git version about 15 minutes ago and compiled it, and
> >> acroread
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 00:20 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 07:56:31PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
>> I cloned the git version about 15 minutes ago and compiled it, and
>> acroread still does not go full-screen correctly.
> Can you reproduce this using a more
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 07:56:31PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> I cloned the git version about 15 minutes ago and compiled it, and
> acroread still does not go full-screen correctly.
Can you reproduce this using a more accessible program, please? I'm using
FreeBSD.
-- Thomas Adam
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 23:29 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 07:26:50PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 15:08 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 08:38:10AM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 07:26:50PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 15:08 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 08:38:10AM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 23:27 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, Jul 16,
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 15:08 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 08:38:10AM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 23:27 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 07:10:24PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
I recently upgraded a
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 23:27 (+0100), Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 07:10:24PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
>> I recently upgraded a computer from Slackware64 14.1 to 14.2, which
>> bumped by fvwm version from 2.6.5 to 2.6.6.
>> With the new system, when I ask Adobe
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 07:10:24PM -0300, zli...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
> I recently upgraded a computer from Slackware64 14.1 to 14.2, which
> bumped by fvwm version from 2.6.5 to 2.6.6.
>
> With the new system, when I ask Adobe reader 9.5.5 to go full-screen,
> I get a window with no
I recently upgraded a computer from Slackware64 14.1 to 14.2, which
bumped by fvwm version from 2.6.5 to 2.6.6.
With the new system, when I ask Adobe reader 9.5.5 to go full-screen,
I get a window with no decorations, but it only occupies about 3/4 of
the screen, off to the lower right.
I
27 matches
Mail list logo