Re: xhost-related patches

note: recipients adjusted to -workers only

On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:21:07 -0400, Tom Lane writes:
>I have a couple of ancient patches that I've been carrying, which maybe
>you'd consider:
>
>(1) Allow stuff in front of "X server insecure" in send.tcl;
>this seems to be necessary in my operating environment:

just committed.

>(2) Use the modified send proc in exmh-async (probably there are better
>ways to do this, and I'm not sure if it needs to be configurable).
>I find this to be necessary too, as sometimes things reset the xhost
>list while I'm editing a message:

do you have the preference 'Keep xhost list clear' on (in background
processing)?

but more to the point: are you still using xhost instead of xauthority?
i haven't seen any xhost-related issues in a decade, so your report here
is somewhat surprising...

regards
az


-- 
Alexander Zangerl + GnuPG Keys 0x42BD645D or 0x5B586291 + http://snafu.priv.at/
"Qrovna: I still think that this sounds like a dodgy Slovenian liqueur 
derived from mouldy potatoes and tractor-fuel, and best drunk by other 
people whom you don't like very much." -- Roger Burton West on ROT13(Debian)

_______________________________________________
Exmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-workers

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+oa2wACgkQ+bKELRvb2Dxc/AD9Hd8AlDWrv6jiaytRE4vRCuTI
D2VsxuHhskqzd0R+qqgBAIJV4cVyPvflQxmHoiJiuFcrIIZq/T2gIqpI9YIZ0nBT
=0u1M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----