#164 closed defect (fixed)
Shift key not working with some specific keys
Reported by: | Punx120 | Owned by: | Antoine Martin |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | 0.4 |
Component: | core | Version: | 0.3.2 |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
Hello,
The shift key is not working with a subset of key. For example if I press shift + i, i have a lower i, not an upper i.
Keys affected are : e,r,i,d,f,g,h,j,k,l,c,v.
I would suspect a conflict with some specific command. I have the problem with java based application (matlab) and gtk (gedit).
I'm running xpra 0.3.3.
Thanks
Sylvain
Attachments (3)
Change History (11)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
It seems like a regression, 0.3.2 works.
$ setxkbmap -query Error! Option "-query" not recognized $ setxkbmap -print xkb_keymap { xkb_keycodes { include "evdev+aliases(qwerty)" }; xkb_types { include "complete" }; xkb_compat { include "complete" }; xkb_symbols { include "pc+us+inet(evdev)" }; xkb_geometry { include "pc(pc105)" }; };
Nothing is specific on my keyboard.
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
distro is RHEL 6.2 (x86_64)
Name : xorg-x11-server-Xorg Arch : x86_64 Version : 1.10.4 Release : 6.el6 Name : libxkbfile Arch : x86_64 Version : 1.0.6 Release : 1.1.el6 Name : xorg-x11-xkb-utils Arch : x86_64 Version : 7.4 Release : 6.el6 Name : libxkbfile Arch : i686 Version : 1.0.6 Release : 1.1.el6
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by
I have the same problem with xpra 0.3.3, when connecting from a windows client. If attaching on the same machine (client == server, Ubuntu Lucid) everything works.
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by
Just like to add that other key modifiers (ctrl, alt) are also not working with these keys.
Downgrading to xpra 0.3.2 fixes these issues for me.
comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
I believe this is fixed in both 0.3.4 and 0.4.0
Feel free to re-open if not.
comment:8 Changed 16 months ago by
this ticket has been moved to: https://github.com/Xpra-org/xpra/issues/164
Please add details, like:
etc ...
So I can reproduce the exact same setup.
Does this also happen with
0.3.2
or is this a regression?I suspect #109 and r942 may have caused this...