On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 12:20:41AM -0000, Peter Clifton wrote:
> Rather than patching scripts which call Xvnc, wouldn't a better fix to
> be building Xvnc without the extension in the first place (Or
> determining why it is built in, but doesn't work?)
I'm quite willing to take a patch to do it this way; it was not obvious
to me how to do it, and no one else has had a chance to spend time on
it.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 12:20:41AM -0000, Peter Clifton wrote:
> Rather than patching scripts which call Xvnc, wouldn't a better fix to
> be building Xvnc without the extension in the first place (Or
> determining why it is built in, but doesn't work?)
I'm quite willing to take a patch to do it this way; it was not obvious
to me how to do it, and no one else has had a chance to spend time on
it.