On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 09:04:45AM -0700, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Daniel Burrows wrote: > > Looks like a mistake to me. I'd think suggesting vnc-server, or maybe > > (say) "tightvncserver | vnc-server", would be just fine. OTOH, tightvnc > > has protocol extensions and works better with its own server, so that > > suggestion isn't entirely silly. > > Actually I think the whole suggests is a mistake. The whole idea is that > the client is to connect to a remote machine running the server. Suggesting > the server on the local machine does no good.
Well, IIRC you can use VNC on a local machine to get a detachable X session a la screen. I don't know if this use case is common enough to justify a Suggests, though. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
