Well, after I ran make install, I ended up with:
[yan@hamlet Xserver]$ ls -l `locate Xwrapper`
-rws--x--x 1 root root 15624 Jul 22 12:44
/usr/X11R6/bin/Xwrapper
-rwxrwxr-x 1 root root 15624 Jul 22 06:37
/usr/src/vnc/vnc_unixsrc/Xvnc/programs/Xserver/Xwrapper
[yan@hamlet Xserver]$
Note that both are the same size.
The correct Xwrapper is:
-rws--x--x 1 root root 6024 Jul 23 06:49
/usr/X11R6/bin/Xwrapper
the TightVNC distrib clearly made an Xwrapper. Make install then
overwrote the original distrib's Xwrapper.
From the wrapper.c code:
#ifndef XSERVER_PATH
#define XSERVER_PATH "/usr/X11R6/bin/X"
#endif
switch (bad) {
case NotBad:
execve(XSERVER_PATH, argv, envp);
fprintf(stderr, "execve failed for %s (errno %d)\n", XSERVER_PATH,
errno);
Should I have not run make install? Or did I screw something up in the
make process?
No problem, just a curiosity. What's up?
--Yan
Const Kaplinsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>>>>>>"YS" == Yan Seiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>>
>
> YS> Turns out that tight-vnc (and I assume vnc as well) installs a new
> YS> copy of Xwrapper that tries to run /usr/X11R6/bin/X.
>
> Oh no, it does not do that (neither standard VNC nor TightVNC). And I
> have no idea why should it need to replace Xwrapper or to interfere
> with the main X server in any other way...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
