[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: dontzap - a application to revert dontzap setting



David wrote:
On 4/7/2009 6:48 PM, David wrote:
On 4/7/2009 4:18 PM, psmith wrote:
David wrote:
On 4/7/2009 3:37 PM, psmith wrote:

Adam Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 16:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:



Michal Hlavinka wrote:



And what about



RFE: Zap after warning (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494528 )



They've chosen this way in opensuse - first time you press c+a+bs it
produces warning (bell) and second time it works as usual



And bonus: it uses less space than two new packages :o)



If and when the RFE's gets accepted, maybe. I wouldn't count on it.
Meanwhile, x-kit is being used by a number of other programs and
useful
to have in the repository.  If you have x-kit, dontzap is just a small
script. No big deal.




Please.  Stop talking about xkit.  We have a library for this already,
it's called pyxf86config.  Writing the change to the X log is stupid if
you can also do it as a runtime XKB change, like mapping Caps Lock to
Compose like a sensible person.



The dontzap script is the wrong solution.  Please stop suggesting it.



- ajax



well since the xorg devs decided to disable x zapping please suggest the
right solution?



How about trying this? 'Put it back in yourself'.  ;-)

It looks like this.


Section "ServerFlags"
Option "DontZap" "false"
EndSection





and since were supposed to be moving away from using an xorg.conf all of
us who want to be able to restart x (and believe me as good as those
xorg devs think their code is it still happens quite regularly) without
having to go to a virtual terminal etc have to regress to using one to
keep people who want to make linux like windows or those emacs users who
don't type to well happy.



Then I guess that you will have to compile your own Xorg with the switch
turned on?  :-)


Seriously. From what I read 'they' are trying to make Xorg better able to
handle common things without a conf file. But Xorg still does use a conf
file if it is exists. In other words? The dontzap that you set stays. As
well as the nonfree drivers that some use and need the conf file.

Relax man. You'll live longer. 8-)
you know it may seem from my messages that i'm raging about this but it's not the case, and if you can read emotions from typed text you are a special individual ;)

i am a very chilled i'm my life and in fact i have already mentioned that i will compile x with the years old standards set, heck i may even put up a repo for others who wont like this change to use (and trust me when i say that as more and more distro's implement this new x there will be lots of those people) but i still say that fedora should take the lead and revert this stupid change as most who have posted on this in the fedora lists are against it, they have diverted from upstream on many different things and i don't see why this should be different, and then let those who want this change regress to using an xorg.conf

phil


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]