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 601208 - missing scrollbars for overflowing contents in some preferences tabs
missing scrollbars for overflowing contents in some preferences tabs
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Shell
2.28.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Evolution Shell Maintainers Team
Evolution QA team
: 614838 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2009-11-09 02:04 UTC by Jean-François Fortin Tam
Modified: 2010-04-05 03:43 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
screenshots (600.00 KB, application/x-tar)
2009-11-09 02:04 UTC, Jean-François Fortin Tam
Details

Description Jean-François Fortin Tam 2009-11-09 02:04:46 UTC
Created attachment 147234 [details]
screenshots

I know bug #267787 exists, but I'm not sure what I am seeing here is to be
considered the same thing or not, in the sense that the solution seems simpler
(I think): add auto scrollbars in the offending tabs.

Basically, Evo's prefs dialog *almost* works fine in 1024x600, because most
contents fit in roughly 500px high, or have scrollbars. Only some tabs do not
have scrollbars (see attached serie of screenshots).

Fixing this would simply be a matter of adding an automatic gtk scrollbar to
all tabs? (I can't provide a patch sadly)

I searched around for other bugs regarding scrollbars, did not find any, so if
I missed one or if it's really the same issue as bug #267787, feel free to mark
as a duplicate.
Comment 1 Matthew Barnes 2010-03-25 14:05:55 UTC
Closing as WONTFIX.  Scroll bars are not the right solution to the overloaded preferences window.  Most likely it would only encourage making the problem worse.
Comment 2 Matthew Barnes 2010-04-05 03:43:42 UTC
*** Bug 614838 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***