Re: The wider implications of dbus breakage

2009-07-17 Thread Sven Joachim
On 2009-07-17 11:45 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:14:15AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: >> >> C-A-Bksp disabled by default is an Xorg upstream decision, has nothing >> to do with D-Bus or HAL or whatever. > > This is the real breakage here. It's easy for X to leave you n

Re: The wider implications of dbus breakage

2009-07-17 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le vendredi 17 juillet 2009 à 11:45 +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit : > > C-A-Bksp disabled by default is an Xorg upstream decision, has nothing > > to do with D-Bus or HAL or whatever. > > This is the real breakage here. It's easy for X to leave you no way out, > all it takes is a window manager go

Re: The wider implications of dbus breakage

2009-07-17 Thread Adam Borowski
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:14:15AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Roger Leigh schrieb: > > > > If you run a current unstable system, with a default (empty) > > xorg.conf this disables C-A-Fn and C-A-Bksp to switch to a > > virtual terminal or kill a dead X server. I noticed that if you > > C-A-Bk

Re: The wider implications of dbus breakage

2009-07-16 Thread Michael Biebl
Roger Leigh schrieb: > > If you run a current unstable system, with a default (empty) > xorg.conf this disables C-A-Fn and C-A-Bksp to switch to a > virtual terminal or kill a dead X server. I noticed that if you You are mixing a few things here: C-A-Bksp disabled by default is an Xorg upstream