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

Bug#390929: compiz: "Another window manager is already running on screen: 0"



Hi,

On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 00:13 +0300, Radu Spineanu wrote: 
> >>  $ compiz --replace
> >> GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap is available with direct rendering.
> >> /usr/bin/gtk-window-decorator: Could not acquire decoration manager
> >> selection on screen 0 display ":0.0"
> >> /usr/bin/compiz.real: decoration: property ignored because version is
> >> 20061011 and decoration plugin version is 20070319
> >> /usr/bin/compiz.real: decoration: property ignored because version is
> >> 20061011 and decoration plugin version is 20070319
> >> /usr/bin/compiz.real: decoration: property ignored because version is
> >> 20061011 and decoration plugin version is 20070319
> >> /usr/bin/compiz.real: Failed to load slide: freedesktop
> > 
> > Which compiz are you using? 0.5.0 is currently in unstable, it would be
> > good to test it.
> > 
> That's the one I was using.
> 
> Any tests you want me to run?

I got the very same problem with compiz 0.5.
Removing the old compiz configuration solved it and logging out/in
solved it (run 'gconftool-2 --recursive-unset /apps/compiz').

But,

I still have no borders using : 
* compiz 0.5.0.dfsg-1
* xserver-xorg-core 2:1.3.0.0.dfsg-6
* Option "AddARGBGLXVisuals" "True"


Maybe this can be useful:

After I run 'compiz --replace', gtk-window-decorator takes nearly 100%
of my cpu resources...

$ compiz --replace &
$ top
PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
5917 steph     25   0 18036 8328 6140 R 94.5  0.5   2:54.93
gtk-window-deco
3240 root      15   0 87172  31m 8052 S  2.0  2.1   1:18.37 Xorg
5926 steph     15   0 52096  12m 3932 S  2.0  0.8   0:00.65 compiz.real


Yet, borders work if I use compiz 0.2.2-1 (and reset compiz
configuration).


Hope it helps!

Don't hesitate to ask me if you need more information or tests (just
tell me what you need exactly because I don't know where to begin...)

Cheers,

-- 
Steph




Reply to: