Since x11-misc/parcellite-1.0.2-rc6 there is not possible to launch parcellite in different user sessions. x11-misc/parcellite-1.0.2-rc6 segfaults, x11-misc/parcellite-1.1.4 regularly exits. Version 1.1.4 especially vulnerable because of implementation based on looking through /proc filesystem disregarding users. Steps to reproduce: First session: # whoami my_user # parcellite # 1.1.4 running parcellite not found PRI fifo 6 CLI fifo 7 PRI fifo 6 ... Another session: # whoami my_another_user # parcellite # 1.0.2-rc6 Unable to open fifo: No such device or address Unable to open fifo: No such device or address Error opening fifo. Exit Mmemory access exception (SIGSEGV) # parcellite # 1.1.4 parcellite found Unable to open fifo: No such device or address Unable to open fifo: No such device or address CLI fifo -1 PRI fifo -1 Error opening fifo. Exit Bug reported here: https://sourceforge.net/p/parcellite/bugs/81 Patch against svn HEAD attached or accessible here: http://psika.cz/files/parcellite-svn-r349-fix-multiple-instances.patch Modified parcellite-1.1.4 ebuild (parcellite-1.1.4-r1.ebuild) attached. Haven't tried patching 1.0.2-r6, but is could work too. It could be merged to official portage tree (or bug overlay) or just being prepared for anybody who need to run parcellite within multiple users and does not like waiting till official (and of course complete) bugfix release. This is not official bugfix. Just temporary fix for quite annoying bug. Reproducible: Always
Created attachment 341052 [details] modified ebuild
Created attachment 341054 [details, diff] bugfix
I want to wait until upstream responds to that patch.
From the 1.1.5 ChangeLog: +Tentative Fix for bug 81, Cannot run for multiple users, on multiple X sessions. Does it work? I really hope so because I have just removed the old stable 1.0.*. :-\
Issue (parcellite bug #81) will be fixed upstream within version 1.1.7. http://sourceforge.net/p/parcellite/bugs/81/?page=1
1.1.7 is the current stable, so I believe we can close this now as per Comment #4 and Comment #5