[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

xorg-server: Changes to 'debian-unstable'



 debian/changelog   |    3 +++
 randr/rrxinerama.c |    8 ++++++++
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)

New commits:
commit 74e18840c36dddc2b07bae7ff6db8e30181986cc
Author: Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@ens-lyon.org>
Date:   Mon May 14 08:33:16 2007 +0200

    Pull upstream commit 9c80eda826448822328bb678a7d284cc43fffb17

diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 56a8656..8cdafab 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -13,6 +13,9 @@ xorg-server (2:1.3.0.0.dfsg-5) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
     config file during installation. Closes: #222932.
   * Fix warning in /etc/init.d/xprint when /usr/lib/X11/fonts does not exist.
     Closes: #422352. Thanks Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn!
+  * Pull upstream commit 9c80eda826448822328bb678a7d284cc43fffb17 to disable
+    RandR's fake xinerama geometry when there's more than one protocol screen
+    (closes: #420679).
 
   [ Julien Cristau ]
   * Add patch to make sure that the ramdac symbols are present in the server

commit 3bdc882fe2aa58bc0bc81ae7b918f2ed03aff0db
Author: Adam Jackson <ajax@benzedrine.nwnk.net>
Date:   Wed Apr 25 16:35:04 2007 -0400

    Disable RANDR's fake Xinerama protocol when there's more than one screen.
    
    ... in the protocol sense.  Xinerama doesn't have any provision for more
    than one protocol screen each with its own geometry.
    
    Red Hat bug #231257.

diff --git a/randr/rrxinerama.c b/randr/rrxinerama.c
index 63a34b5..3b70b01 100644
--- a/randr/rrxinerama.c
+++ b/randr/rrxinerama.c
@@ -425,6 +425,14 @@ RRXineramaExtensionInit(void)
 	return;
 #endif
 
+    /*
+     * Xinerama isn't capable enough to have multiple protocol screens each
+     * with their own output geometry.  So if there's more than one protocol
+     * screen, just don't even try.
+     */
+    if (screenInfo.numScreens > 1)
+	return;
+
     (void) AddExtension(PANORAMIX_PROTOCOL_NAME, 0,0,
 			ProcRRXineramaDispatch,
 			SProcRRXineramaDispatch,



Reply to: