From newsgroups.mail2@stefanbaur.de  Sat Oct 13 01:09:50 2012
Received: (at submit) by bugs.x2go.org; 12 Oct 2012 23:09:50 +0000
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171])
	by ymir (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC505DB11;
	Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:09:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.2.3] (dslb-188-099-192-139.pools.arcor-ip.net [188.99.192.139])
	by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
	id 0LqYLt-1TrlOR0E5Z-00dhwD; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:09:50 +0200
Message-ID: <5078A349.6040008@stefanbaur.de>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:10:01 +0200
From: Stefan Baur <newsgroups.mail2@stefanbaur.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stefan Baur <newsgroups.mail2@stefanbaur.de>, 48@bugs.x2go.org, 
 x2go-dev@lists.berlios.de
CC: submit@bugs.x2go.org
Subject: Re: [X2Go-Dev] Bug#48: heuler x2gothinclient multihead support breaks
 singlehead mode
References: <50789EB5.6020003@stefanbaur.de>
In-Reply-To: <50789EB5.6020003@stefanbaur.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Vac6VP0EnsONrRXmCvg1+NABK3/AJPu1XYfjYXJfNOz
 eVd2FYYOOrvXncCRyJHGMdTu2qp/tHVT8/HVvAH9LpWsg0PTk+
 gkyofMwBOkICOcrgWfjvY4jJmUi3LwKd9Xbs6yS8JvdlKvXqEq
 33mUzHEn5c9oOIJOB9oVRxZgt5hzKixl5bj+LE2TegWbvRcy64
 zCBF7XYu9iGWv/fx1bD2IPRuWd6ilwpEw19Ueyfwrk0Sj2Lxb2
 vkjoQSHNg5N3DiLqGIEPjDH673+Pqjlf912zTBzH4jkwNG8fm7
 YFKx1X6eZ8979EgJJ0dwD/vnyiNxxjYT2l2qGScsdEuflBeHrP
 9TOrPg/7u6RBaNpXigbwazaF1MpabJ0HH7+PAzlfP

/me wrote:

 > So, two suggestions:
 > 1) STDERR from xrandr  should go to /dev/null or to a log
 > file/syslog, so
 > -foreach (`DISPLAY=:0 LANG=C xrandr | grep ' connected ' | cut -d ' ' 
 > -f1`)
 > +foreach (`DISPLAY=:0 LANG=C xrandr 2>/dev/null | grep ' connected ' |
 > cut -d ' ' -f1`)

 > 2) A simple fix could be
 > if (1 < `DISPLAY=:0 LANG=C xrandr | grep ' connected ' | wc -l`)
 > {
 >     foreach (`DISPLAY=:0 LANG=C xrandr | grep ' connected ' | cut -d '
 > ' -f1`)
 >     {
 >     ...
 >     }
 > }
 > I'm sure there might be a more elegant solution that works within the
 > foreach loop, but "Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet."

And indeed there is:
1) seems to be enough of a fix, so 2) isn't necessary any more.

-Stefan