Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > Indeed, I believe this is an Xrm issue, not necessarily a Xt one. Well the file I referenced is the only .c or .h file in all of X that contains the string '"app-defaults"'. > Hacking X to do this seems bad. Why did upstream not have a similar redundant > search path? Remember, upstream almost never thinks about backwards compatability and incremental upgrades the way we do. -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Joey Hess
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Marcelo E. Magallon
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Branden Robinson
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Branden Robinson
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Branden Robinson
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Branden Robinson
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Christian T. Steigies
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Wichert Akkerman
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Joey Hess
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Joey Hess
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Branden Robinson
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Sven LUTHER
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Sven LUTHER
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Branden Robinson
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Marcelo E. Magallon
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Branden Robinson
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Derek J Witt
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Branden Robinson
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Marcelo E. Magallon
- Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults Sven LUTHER