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

Bug#420419: Current version don't support dual-screen in dual-head



Seg, 2007-04-23 às 21:45 +0200, Brice Goglin escreveu:
> Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > 1) I couldn't make the X server work with two different screens (I
> > mean :0.0 and :0.1), I only get a xinerama-like support, which is not
> > what I want (I like to have 2 x more desktops of the same size and not
> > having 2 x bigger the same number of desktops).
> I am not sure people are working on what you want nowadays. It looks
> like XRandR 1.2 (i.e. improved Xinerama) will rule the world. However,
> XRandR may provides almost what you want if the window manager does his
> job, I mean the WM could be able to emulate 2x more desktops inside same
> number of "2 x bigger" desktop.

Ouch... I think this is a must for lenny, I mean, we must guarantee that
every single window manager (ok, at least gnome and kde wm) is able to
do that...

> > 2) It seems that this also disabled gl support, I used to have direct
> > rendering, but I don't have it anymore.
> What board do you have? I see "Virtual 2560 1024" in your config, but
> only i965 can do DRI on more than 2048x2048 currently (the hardware is
> limited to 11bits for each direction). So you might want to change to
> "2048 2048" and place one screen above the other one.

Hmm... got it... Is there some hack to avoid having to wall-mount the
other monitor in top of my laptop in other to get a sane mouse
behaviour?

> > I'm attaching my config file, but I really don't think there's also
> > really specific, in fact, it seems to be ignoring my declaration of two
> > screens.
> I guess that's expected. xrandr --output VGA --left-of LVDS is the way
> to do it now. Having two Monitor/Screen is probably ignores (assuming it
> doesn't even crash right now...). I don't know if having two
> ServerLayout sections is supposed to do something.

The two servers were just because I had a fallback config that I turned
on from time to time...

daniel




Reply to: