Am 2014-01-06 19:33, schrieb Martin Peres:
Le 06/01/2014 19:10, Sebastian Wick a écrit :
Am 2014-01-06 16:05, schrieb Martin Peres:
As I said before, I think trusting applications is taking the problem
the wrong way.
What we want is that a screenshot can only happen when the *user*
wants it.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Mariusz Ceier wrote:
> I think both patches (and original code too obviously) are wrong -
> WL_DISPLAY_ERROR (opcode 0) event has signature "ous", so Quentin
> patch calls event with too many arguments and ignores types, and Marek
> patch calls event with too few ar
Le 06/01/2014 19:10, Sebastian Wick a écrit :
Am 2014-01-06 16:05, schrieb Martin Peres:
As I said before, I think trusting applications is taking the problem
the wrong way.
What we want is that a screenshot can only happen when the *user*
wants it.
This is why I think it is the desktop shell
Am 2014-01-06 16:05, schrieb Martin Peres:
As I said before, I think trusting applications is taking the problem
the wrong way.
What we want is that a screenshot can only happen when the *user* wants
it.
This is why I think it is the desktop shell's job to launch the
screenshot app when
requir
Le 04/01/2014 11:01, Martin Graesslin a écrit :
On Tuesday 31 December 2013 05:02:30 Sebastian Wick wrote:
I'm currently working on a system which allows specific clients to use
restricted interfaces [1]. This is needed for applications like
screenhooters,
desktop recorders outside of the compos
I think both patches (and original code too obviously) are wrong -
WL_DISPLAY_ERROR (opcode 0) event has signature "ous", so Quentin
patch calls event with too many arguments and ignores types, and Marek
patch calls event with too few arguments and incorrect type for the
second argument.
Imo, corre
The call is wrong, I posted it here:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2013-November/012141.html
But without any reaction. Good that somobody else renewed it :)
On 05/01/2014, Quentin Glidic wrote:
> From: Quentin Glidic
>
> Signed-off-by: Quentin Glidic
> ---
>
> I do not kno
On 3 January 2014 20:59, Tobias Sarnowski wrote:
> does XWayland operate? From the highlevel documentation at
> http://wayland.freedesktop.org/xserver.html I conclude, that the X11 support
> is done via having a single Wayland client which then multiplexes the stuff
> internally to all X11 clients
