Re: [Tigervnc-devel] rh692048 patch

2012-09-06 Thread Brian Hinz
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:34 AM, DRC wrote: > On 9/6/12 9:11 AM, Adam Tkac wrote: > > In my opinion the best will be to automatically add VeNCrypt only when > user > > explicitly selects some VeNCrypt subtype (TLS*/X509*). If no VeNCrypt > subtype is > > selected, then default should be VncAuth, n

Re: [Tigervnc-devel] rh692048 patch

2012-09-06 Thread DRC
On 9/6/12 9:11 AM, Adam Tkac wrote: > In my opinion the best will be to automatically add VeNCrypt only when user > explicitly selects some VeNCrypt subtype (TLS*/X509*). If no VeNCrypt subtype > is > selected, then default should be VncAuth, not VeNCrypt,VncAuth, which is > default > now. I con

Re: [Tigervnc-devel] rh692048 patch

2012-09-06 Thread Adam Tkac
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 08:30:08AM -0500, DRC wrote: > On 9/5/12 11:24 PM, Brian Hinz wrote: > > Is there any good reason why the "rh692048" patch [1] that RedHat, > > Debain, etc. are applying hasn't been merged into the trunk? I see > > Martin's point regarding the order of the security types in

Re: [Tigervnc-devel] rh692048 patch

2012-09-06 Thread DRC
On 9/5/12 11:24 PM, Brian Hinz wrote: > Is there any good reason why the "rh692048" patch [1] that RedHat, > Debain, etc. are applying hasn't been merged into the trunk? I see > Martin's point regarding the order of the security types in this thread: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/tigervnc-devel@

Re: [Tigervnc-devel] rh692048 patch

2012-09-06 Thread Adam Tkac
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 12:24:41AM -0400, Brian Hinz wrote: > Is there any good reason why the "rh692048" patch [1] that RedHat, Debain, > etc. are applying hasn't been merged into the trunk? I see Martin's point > regarding the order of the security types in this thread: > > http://www.mail-arch

Re: [Tigervnc-devel] rh692048 patch

2012-09-06 Thread Pierre Ossman
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 00:24:41 -0400 Brian Hinz wrote: > > In either case, it seems a bit silly to me not to adopt the patch given > that basically every major distro has already done so. By not doing so, > we're potentially creating multiple releases of the same "version" that are > incompatible

[Tigervnc-devel] rh692048 patch

2012-09-05 Thread Brian Hinz
Is there any good reason why the "rh692048" patch [1] that RedHat, Debain, etc. are applying hasn't been merged into the trunk? I see Martin's point regarding the order of the security types in this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00746.html But as far