walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 03:36:05
+:
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 08:27:55 +, Duncan wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Yes, a second running instance can screw pan up. AFAIK what it does is
>> keep the settings from the last closed version, thus
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 08:27:55 +, Duncan wrote:
> ...
> Yes, a second running instance can screw pan up. AFAIK what it does is
> keep the settings from the last closed version, thus losing any changes
> you made to the first-closed version...
A simple lockfile written to ~/.pan2 should preven
On 08/03/2008 Duncan wrote:
Yes, a second running instance can screw pan up. AFAIK what it does
is
keep the settings from the last closed version, thus losing any
changes
you made to the first-closed version.
In my case, what it does is re-write servers.xml with no server in it.
Then, when
walt wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:13:07 -0400, David Shochat wrote:
...is anyone /not/ seeing this problem who has 2.12...
I have 2.12.9 and I don't see it.
Well, I have another clue. I upgraded gtk2 (and various other things) on
my Mac via "port upgrade installed" and that gave me
Joe Zeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:15:50
-0700:
> I was reading news earlier today and when I closed Pan I found a second
> copy of it running behind, with the same list of unread headers.
> Naturally, I closed it. The next time I opene
