The error in x-reply is the result of x client's request of one
of the extensions. In this case, the error must be handled by
the extension who sent the request.
Signed-off-by: Boram Park boram1288.p...@samsung.com
---
src/xcb_io.c |9 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4
Similar to libxcb and it's modules we do not need to have libraries
in the Requires field in the pkg-config file. We will be able to
retain the explicit x11/xcb header inclusion from the x11-xcb ones
and satisfy all the build-time dependencies, while avoiding over-linking
and other potential
This reverts commit f09c5299a381e2729e800a0ac43f1c0e371f65f6.
The TCP fallback ended up falling back to UNIX socket connection if
$DISPLAY was set to e.g. some.host:0 and the initial attempt failed.
Debian bug#659558 http://bugs.debian.org/659558
Signed-off-by: Julien Cristau
On 2010-04-12 16:25, Tiago Vignatti wrote:
Jamey Sharp wrote:
I re-ran performance tests when we switched to the socket handoff API,
and my results showed very little difference between libX11 built with
and without XCB. I think that testing was with a simple application that
sends
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 11:36:55AM -0700, Jamey Sharp wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Jeremy Huddleston
jerem...@freedesktop.org wrote:
So what is the general recommendation at this point for how to ship
libX11? I'm still shipping a build --without-xcb mainly because we
wanted to
to XCB, it's
often full of negative comments. If what's really going on is that
you're protecting me from your users' wrath, then thank you. :-)
Totally with you on this. The bug above is unlike the Sun java related one
which hit us after inheriting xcb enabled libX11 from Debian roughly two
Le 09/04/2010 20:36, Jamey Sharp a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Jeremy Huddleston
jerem...@freedesktop.org wrote:
So what is the general recommendation at this point for how to ship
libX11? I'm still shipping a build --without-xcb mainly because we
wanted to play it safe during
So what is the general recommendation at this point for how to ship libX11?
I'm still shipping a build --without-xcb mainly because we wanted to play it
safe during xcb's infancy. Has anyone did performance comparisons recently?
Are there any bugs or support issues with the switch that I
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Jeremy Huddleston
jerem...@freedesktop.org wrote:
So what is the general recommendation at this point for how to ship
libX11? I'm still shipping a build --without-xcb mainly because we
wanted to play it safe during xcb's infancy.
I'm curious to hear from
Jamey Sharp wrote:
I'm curious to hear from packagers myself. I think most packagers are
building --with-xcb at this point, on Linux, BSD, and Solaris? I don't
know though.
Solaris 10 and older are still X11R6 libX11, so no xcb in them.
For OpenSolaris and the next Solaris release, we're
to play it safe during xcb's infancy.
I'm curious to hear from packagers myself. I think most packagers are
building --with-xcb at this point, on Linux, BSD, and Solaris? I don't
know though.
OpenBSD 4.7 (already finished, waiting for release in may) will ship
with a xcb-enabled libX11.
FreeBSD
On 2010-04-09 13:36, Jamey Sharp wrote:
I'm curious to hear from packagers myself. I think most packagers are
building --with-xcb at this point, on Linux, BSD, and Solaris? I don't
know though.
Cygwin has shipped libX11 --with-xcb since X11R7.4.
Yaakov
Cygwin/X
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Jamey Sharp wrote:
I may not have a complete picture of support issues, though. Ubuntu
apparently fails to send XCB-related bug reports upstream, for example,
and naturally I can't tell if other distros are failing the same way.
Is this upstream enough?
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Timo Aaltonen timo.aalto...@aalto.fi wrote:
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Jamey Sharp wrote:
I may not have a complete picture of support issues, though. Ubuntu
apparently fails to send XCB-related bug reports upstream, for example,
and naturally I can't tell if other
14 matches
Mail list logo
