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

Bug#353653: marked as done (openoffice.org: Menu misplaced with Xinerama setup)

Your message dated Thu, 22 May 2008 22:51:03 +0200
with message-id <4835DCB7.7080001@gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#353653: The 2nd Debian Openoffice.org bug triage - bug #353653
has caused the Debian Bug report #353653,
regarding openoffice.org: Menu misplaced with Xinerama setup
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
353653: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=353653
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: openoffice.org
Version: 2.0.1-2
Severity: normal

Hi,

I have two monitors configured with Xinerama. My screen setup looks like the
following:

 ---------------------
|          | Virtual  | (Virtual areas are not visible)
| Screen 1 |----------|
|          |          |
|          |          |
|----------| Screen 2 |
| Virtual  |          |
 ---------------------


If openoffice writer (for example, but I have exactly the same beahviour
wiht calc and impress) is opened and maximised on screen 1, everything
works well.
If it is on screen 1, not maximised, with the menu bar in the middle of
the screen, the File menu is then drawn from the top of the screen 1 (as
there is no room to draw it under the menu bar), which is correct.

But if it is on screen 2, maximised or not, the File menu is drawn from
the top of the virtual screen, so that I can't see the beginning of the
menu!
It seems that openoffice, recognise the Xinerama setup of screen 1
(which is the main monitor), but doesn't take enough care of the menu
placement on the additional monitor.

Ask me if you need more information, explanations or testing.
Cheers,

-- 
Steph


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (970, 'stable'), (950, 'unstable'), (930, 'experimental'), (890, 'breezy'), (870, 'dapper'), (500, 'dapper-updates'), (500, 'dapper-security'), (500, 'dapper-backports'), (500, 'breezy-updates'), (500, 'breezy-security'), (500, 'breezy-backports')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)

Versions of packages openoffice.org depends on:
ii  openoffice.org-base           2.0.1-2    OpenOffice.org office suite - data
ii  openoffice.org-calc           2.0.1-2    OpenOffice.org office suite - spre
ii  openoffice.org-core           2.0.1-2    OpenOffice.org office suite archit
ii  openoffice.org-draw           2.0.1-2    OpenOffice.org office suite - draw
ii  openoffice.org-impress        2.0.1-2    OpenOffice.org office suite - pres
ii  openoffice.org-java-common    2.0.1-2    OpenOffice.org office suite Java s
ii  openoffice.org-math           2.0.1-2    OpenOffice.org office suite - equa
ii  openoffice.org-writer         2.0.1-2    OpenOffice.org office suite - word

openoffice.org recommends no packages.

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- I close the bug as I haven't 2 monitors anymore, so I cannot confirm the bug still exists in 2.4.0. 

Regards,
--
Steph

Lior Kaplan wrote:

Dear openoffice.org user,

Thanks for your interest in OO.org and the bug report [1] you have contributed:
#353653: openoffice.org: Menu misplaced with Xinerama setup
Openoffice.org 2.4.0, is available from the unstable, testing and backports repositories, and it is newer than the version you reported to be problematic. 

Please reproduce your bug on an updated version and confirm it still exists,
or close it as irrelevant for recent versions.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: