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 503435 - background image size incorrectly calculated for multihead
background image size incorrectly calculated for multihead
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 147808
Product: gnome-control-center
Classification: Core
Component: [obsolete] Appearance
2.20.x
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Control-Center Maintainers
Control-Center Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-12-13 15:16 UTC by Jean-François Fortin Tam
Modified: 2007-12-13 15:25 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.19/2.20


Attachments
screenshots worth 1000 words (600.00 KB, application/x-tar)
2007-12-13 15:21 UTC, Jean-François Fortin Tam
Details

Description Jean-François Fortin Tam 2007-12-13 15:16:17 UTC
Please describe the problem:
when using multiple monitor devices with my laptop (intel graphics), the backgroung image is not properly set, it is too big (zoom mode) or centered between the screens (scale mode/center mode).

Steps to reproduce:
1. use the intel modesetting driver (?)
2. use randr >1.2
3. set the computer to dual screen on the fly (the tool urandr can help you do it easily)


Actual results:
the background is way overstretched

Expected results:
size the background to fit correctly each screen, or, if that is not possible (doubt that), calculate based only on the screen with the highest resolution

Does this happen every time?
yes

Other information:
my guess of the problem: the background capplet does not take into account different physical devices: it thinks that 1280x1024+1280x800 = 2560x1824 and sizes its image based on that number
Comment 1 Jean-François Fortin Tam 2007-12-13 15:21:34 UTC
Created attachment 100892 [details]
screenshots worth 1000 words
Comment 2 Jens Granseuer 2007-12-13 15:25:53 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 147808 ***