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 84859 - Metacity gives confusing session save message
Metacity gives confusing session save message
Status: RESOLVED NOTABUG
Product: metacity
Classification: Other
Component: general
unspecified
Other other
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Metacity maintainers list
Metacity maintainers list
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2002-06-11 14:10 UTC by Glynn Foster
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.0


Description Glynn Foster 2002-06-11 14:10:03 UTC 
Meacity gives the following message if it can't save the position of the
clients -

These windows do not support "save current setup" and will have to be
restarted manually next time you log in.

This isn't quite true it seems. Both xmms and xcalc get saved by
gnome-session [previously there must have been a bug or something], but
doing a gnome-session-save gives the dialog for xmms and xcalc.

Metacity does manage to save xcalc's position, but doesn't for xmms.
Suggest that this message says something like -

These windows do not properly support "save current setup" and will often
not save their position on the desktop.
Comment 1 Havoc Pennington 2002-06-11 15:06:28 UTC 
Do an "xprop" on xmms - if it has no SM_CLIENT_ID property, then it
does not properly support session management and metacity is correct.
Comment 2 Glynn Foster 2002-06-11 15:34:06 UTC 
Right, neither have the required property - but both are started by
gnome-session, and xcalc's position does get saved in metacity...
This is not really a bug, I guess I should be pleased...just somewhat
confusing ;)
Comment 3 Havoc Pennington 2002-06-11 15:54:45 UTC 
I'm pretty sure there's no way metacity is saving the position of
xcalc if it doesn't have that property. You may be seeing smproxy at work?
Comment 4 Glynn Foster 2002-07-30 23:37:41 UTC 
Yeah, you're probably right...although I suspect some weird XSMP magic
;)...closing