On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:37:20 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> - checking for the appropriate Xrandr version.
> XRRGetScreenResourcesCurrent is a 1.3 function. It's not totally
> clear to me what the difference between it and XRRGetScreenResources
> is. (These aren't docum
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:37:20 -0400
> Matt Turner wrote:
>
>> One more nail in the coffin of XF86VidMode.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matt Turner
>> ---
>> I'm not sure how to test this, but the translation from XF86VidMode
>> Xrandr seems to be pret
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:37:20 -0400
Matt Turner wrote:
> One more nail in the coffin of XF86VidMode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Turner
> ---
> I'm not sure how to test this, but the translation from XF86VidMode
> Xrandr seems to be pretty straightforward. Almost certainly there's
> something wrong
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:37:20 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> One more nail in the coffin of XF86VidMode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Turner
> ---
> I'm not sure how to test this, but the translation from XF86VidMode
> Xrandr seems to be pretty straightforward. Almost certainly there's
> something wrong
One more nail in the coffin of XF86VidMode.
Signed-off-by: Matt Turner
---
I'm not sure how to test this, but the translation from XF86VidMode
Xrandr seems to be pretty straightforward. Almost certainly there's
something wrong with it, as this is the first client-side X programming
I've done, and
