Bug 231515 - after desktop switch gnome-terminal become completely unusable
Summary: after desktop switch gnome-terminal become completely unusable
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 230936
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gnome-terminal   
(Show other bugs)
Version: rawhide
Hardware: x86_64 Linux
high
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Behdad Esfahbod
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-03-08 19:52 UTC by Adam Tkac
Modified: 2013-04-30 23:35 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-03-12 23:44:53 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Adam Tkac 2007-03-08 19:52:26 UTC
Description of problem:
gnome-terminal is very badly broken. Terminal's window is unupdated after
desktop switch

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpm -q gnome-terminal
gnome-terminal-2.17.92-1.fc7

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. start gnome terminal
2. try write something - all is ok
3. switch another desktop
4. try write something (or select something with mouse)
  
Actual results:
terminal is completely unusable. Gnome-terminal window is mysteriously unupdated.

Expected results:
nice programming in vim in gnome-terminal with desktop switching

Additional info:
When I write something and switch desktop to other and back, written text gets
visible

Comment 1 Ivan Gyurdiev 2007-03-11 05:21:04 UTC
Confirming bug, 100% reproducible, x86_64 Fedora Rawhide.
Minimizing the terminal also triggers the bug for me - content is redrawn when
the desktop is changed again, or when the tab is minimized and maximized again.



Comment 2 Adam Tkac 2007-03-12 12:39:23 UTC
I tried update from fc6 gnome-terminal to devel gnome-terminal on i386 and this
problem isn't exists (exists on my x86_64). So this is x86_64 or 64bit problem.

Comment 3 Behdad Esfahbod 2007-03-12 23:44:53 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 230936 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.