#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 9 years ago by
comment:2 Changed 9 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 9 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 9 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 9 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 9 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 6 weeks 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...