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 169134 - part of window offscreen when opening applications in restored state
part of window offscreen when opening applications in restored state
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 137185
Product: metacity
Classification: Other
Component: general
2.8.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Metacity maintainers list
Metacity maintainers list
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2005-03-03 21:10 UTC by Michaël Arnauts
Modified: 2005-05-15 20:30 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
screenshot (14.13 KB, image/png)
2005-03-03 21:10 UTC, Michaël Arnauts 		Details

Description Michaël Arnauts 2005-03-03 21:10:02 UTC 
Okay, this is quite hard to describe, but i will try to do it with a screenshot.

I have some applications (synaptic, azureus, ...) that i like to run maximized.
Now, when i close them while they are maximized and i restart them, they are in
the restored state instead of the maximized state they were before. Because of
that, some parts of the window (the most-right part, and a part of the X-button)
are offscreen.

Should this be filed against all the applications that suffer from this bug, or
is this a metacity-bug?
Comment 1 Michaël Arnauts 2005-03-03 21:10:19 UTC 
Created attachment 38223 [details]
screenshot
Comment 2 Elijah Newren 2005-03-03 21:29:42 UTC 
Sounds like a duplicate of bug 137185...could you try the testcase that
Christian attached to that bug and see if it gives you the behavior you are
observing here?
Comment 3 Michaël Arnauts 2005-05-05 09:09:31 UTC 
This bug is fixed in synaptic now... it indeed looks related to 137185. Maybe
the synaptic-devvers used some workaround then...
Comment 4 Michaël Arnauts 2005-05-15 20:30:22 UTC 
i just tried the testcase, it indeed is a DUP of 137185

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 137185 ***