Patrick Schoenfeld writes: > It now works. However I think that its more then suboptimal if an > upgrade makes running sessions impossible to use. Isn't there a better > way to handle the client<->server connections between urxvtc and > urxvtcd?
It would be nice, but I don't know of any sensible way to replace the running daemon -- if some random user is even running one. It would be kind of like restarting xdm on every upgrade. Incompatible upgrades are at least very rare. I agree that they should not happen in point releases, FWIW. I could put a message in the postinst reminding people to restart but (a) relying on being able to print stuff there is bad (b) most users probably don't care about urxvtd (c) the ones that do are probably aware of this issue (d) every time I see that message from Iceweasel I roll my eyes and ask what operating system this is again. So, I don't know. If you have any ideas I'm open to them. (Ccing the bug, even though it's closed, for the sake of future travelers) -- things change. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
