You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This conversation as well as this one suggests that it is sometimes not possible to establish a connection to the "ordinary" UNIX socket at e.g. /tmp/.X11-unix/X0 or wherever the X server listens.
Maybe clx should try opening the socket using the pathname type and fall back to trying the abstract type. For SBCL, this translates to (make-instance 'sb-bsd-sockets:local-socket) and (make-instance 'sb-bsd-sockets:local-abstract-socket) respectively. I'm sure other implementations support this as well (if nothing else, it should be possible to stick a #\0 into the path as described in the man-page).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
scymtym
changed the title
Should clx try to open an abstract socket
Should clx try to open an abstract socket?
Feb 26, 2020
This conversation as well as this one suggests that it is sometimes not possible to establish a connection to the "ordinary" UNIX socket at e.g.
/tmp/.X11-unix/X0
or wherever the X server listens.In the above cases, it turned out that the socket name wasn't wrong, but that the socket was of the abstract type, not the pathname type.
Maybe clx should try opening the socket using the pathname type and fall back to trying the abstract type. For SBCL, this translates to
(make-instance 'sb-bsd-sockets:local-socket)
and(make-instance 'sb-bsd-sockets:local-abstract-socket)
respectively. I'm sure other implementations support this as well (if nothing else, it should be possible to stick a#\0
into the path as described in the man-page).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: