Bug 180415

Summary:	XConfigureWindow documentation missing arg
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	JW <ohtmvyyn>
Component:	xorg-x11	Assignee:	X/OpenGL Maintenance List <xgl-maint>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	4
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-02-10 22:03:42 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description JW 2006-02-08 00:17:07 UTC

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows; U; AIIEEEE!; Win98; Windows 98; en-US; Gecko masquerading as IE; should it matter?; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050217

Description of problem:
The manual page entry for XConfigureWindow (/usr/X11R6/man/man3/XConfigureWindow.3x) is missing the 4th arg (values).

It should be:

int XConfigureWindow(Display *display, Window w, unsigned value_mask,  XWindowChanges *values);

but the distributed documentation is missing the "values" arg.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
xorg-x11-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.man XConfigureWindow
2.
3.
  

Actual Results:  wrong prototype for XConfigureWindow displayed (only 3 args)

Expected Results:  prototype should have 4 args


Additional info:

This must mean that I am the first person to have ever read the documentation for XConfigureWindow.

Comment 1 Mike A. Harris 2006-02-09 16:55:52 UTC

(In reply to comment #0)
> This must mean that I am the first person to have ever read the documentation
> for XConfigureWindow.

Entirely possible. ;)

Please report issues of this nature directly to X.Org bugzilla at
http://bugs.freedesktop.org in the "xorg" component.  Once the problem
is reported there, it'll be fixed in CVS, and be present in the next release
of X.

Comment 2 JW 2006-02-09 23:58:07 UTC

But if the release number contains FC4 doesn't that seem to indicate that RedHat
has branded it as their own branch?  And if so, shouldn't somebody take a little
more responsibility for the items on which they append their own revision
numbers?  And for which they supply 24 patches?

Why are RedHat factory workers so nonchalantly lazy?