Hi Peter,
On 02/11/2014 06:55 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:49:09PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Detaching from our controllling tty makes little sense when it is the same
typo: controlling. otherwise, Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer
peter.hutte...@who-t.net
Thanks for
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:47:10AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi Peter,
On 02/11/2014 06:55 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:49:09PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Detaching from our controllling tty makes little sense when it is the same
typo: controlling.
Hi,
On 02/12/2014 05:01 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:47:10AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi Peter,
On 02/11/2014 06:55 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:49:09PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Detaching from our controllling tty makes little sense when
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:49:09PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Detaching from our controllling tty makes little sense when it is the same
typo: controlling. otherwise, Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer
peter.hutte...@who-t.net
Cheers,
Peter
as the vt we're asked to run on. So automatically
Detaching from our controllling tty makes little sense when it is the same
as the vt we're asked to run on. So automatically assume -keeptty in this case.
This is useful to do because when not running as root the server can only make
various VT related ioctls when it does not detach from the tty.
