After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 115994 - All terminal windows set the same group leader
All terminal windows set the same group leader
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-terminal
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: GNOME Terminal Maintainers
GNOME Terminal Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-06-26 05:31 UTC by ben
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.1/2.2



Description ben 2003-06-26 05:31:44 UTC
All gnome terminal windows set the same group leader on their windows. This 
makes operations that work on groups as a whole function on all of the 
gnome terminals, but terminal windows clearly do not work together as a 
group (such as, for example, gimp windows do).

The relavant xprop output is

% xprop|grep '\(TRAN\|group\)'
                window id # of group leader: 0x1600001

Each terminal window should keep its own group leader. I don't know the GTK 
code that sets the group leader, so I can't help specify exacltly what to 
call/not call/call differently. Sorry.

A good way to think about it is that each terminal is a separate 
instantiation of the application, so should have a separate group, whereas 
gimp windows are all from a single instantiation and so belong together in 
a group.

If application_based is enabled for metacity this incorrect behavior will 
show itself I expect.
Comment 1 Mariano Suárez-Alvarez 2004-11-01 05:50:21 UTC
I've just commited a change which makes each terminal window be a group by
itself. This will change the way window managers handle terminals when there are
several of them. I tend to prefer having each instance be treated separately
(metacity does not do much with the window group from what I can tell, though)
We'll see how people using other wms react to this...