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

Bug#343728: 097_mouse_zaxis_mapping_pushes_up_buttons should be dropped as of 6.9/7.0 RC3

severity 343728 grave

Since this patch is still included in the X.Org packaging in unstable, 
imwheel is now broken. Please drop the patch (made obsolete by upstream 
changes, as explained below) in the next upload.

This link (and the links it contains) explains further:

Christopher Martin

On Saturday 17 December 2005 12:14, Christopher Martin wrote:
> Package: xserver-xorg
> Version:
> Severity: normal
> Tags: experimental
> Debian's X.Org packaging includes the patch
> 097_mouse_zaxis_mapping_pushes_up_buttons.diff, which serves to adjust
> mouse button mappings so that users didn't have to use xmodmap to make
> all available physical buttons available for use.
> In X.Org 6.9/7.0 RC3, upstream made changes to the mouse button handling.
> The default ZAxisMapping is "4 5 6 7", accommodating scroll wheels with
> two axes. Also by default the mouse physical : logical button mapping is
> now "1 2 3 8 9 ...", so that all physical buttons can be used (thumb
> buttons are 8 and 9) without conflict with the scroll wheel.
> These changes make Debian's 097 patch obsolete, since now all buttons are
> properly exposed by default. Indeed, continuing to include the 097 patch
> causes problems, since the buttons are shifted around twice, and it all
> becomes very messy. (When wondering why imwheel stopped working with the
> latest experimental X, I read up on upstream's changes, and had to
> rebuild X without 097 to get the expected new behaviour).
> FYI, since you'll probably get questions/bug reports, this change in
> behaviour has other implications. Mozilla uses buttons 6 and 7 for
> "forward" and "back", but this doesn't work anymore, since those buttons
> are now assumed to represent the horizontal axis of the scroll wheel,
> whether your mouse has one or not. Users can of course use xmodmap or the
> new ButtonMapping xorg.conf option to work around this. As far as I can
> tell, Qt applications seem to use 6 and 7 for horizontal scrolling
> already, so they shouldn't generate too many reports of brokenness.
> Cheers,
> Christopher Martin
> I'd also like to append this obligatory nag to have bug #237877 looked at
> :)

Reply to: