Description of problem: remote-viewer should have a local user editable config file/registry settings to hard code the guest monitors on to the client monitors. For example, our VDI users have 3 monitors (1 x 19" and 2 x 24") and they want their VM to put its screens on the 24" monitors. We should be able to tell remote-view that it should use physical monitor X for the first guest screen, monitor Y for the second guest screen and so on.
(In reply to comment #0) > Description of problem: > remote-viewer should have a local user editable config file/registry > settings to hard code the guest monitors on to the client monitors. For > example, our VDI users have 3 monitors (1 x 19" and 2 x 24") and they want > their VM to put its screens on the 24" monitors. We should be able to tell > remote-view that it should use physical monitor X for the first guest > screen, monitor Y for the second guest screen and so on. Could you explain why mapping the guest configuration to match client configuration isn't suitable? Do I understand correctly you are asking for the guest to be configured with 2 monitors shown on monitor 2 & 3 of the client? Should this setting be per client/guest configuration? per client only? per guest only? any combination? Should it be configurable from RHEVM instead? This brings a lot of questions on how to provide such feature, when you can just place the client monitor windows manually, like any other application.
For what it's worth, devil's pie may be able to do this kind of positioning.
(In reply to comment #2) > For what it's worth, devil's pie may be able to do this kind of positioning. only on RHEL
*** Bug 957595 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Flagging for discussion for 3.6 prioritization in Spice
(In reply to Scott Herold from comment #17) > Flagging for discussion for 3.6 prioritization in Spice Hello Scott, Any update about this request for 3.6? Thanks!
This should be in MODIFIED, right? Since the rebase of virt-viewer will include this?
(In reply to Yaniv Dary from comment #26) > This should be in MODIFIED, right? Since the rebase of virt-viewer will > include this? I consider it as the tracker bug, no place in errata. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233422 is ON_QA
(In reply to David Blechter from comment #27) > (In reply to Yaniv Dary from comment #26) > > This should be in MODIFIED, right? Since the rebase of virt-viewer will > > include this? > > I consider it as the tracker bug, no place in errata. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233422 is ON_QA Changing this to bug tracker then.
Should this be on_qa?
I understand it is a tracker, but if the dependent bugs are ON_QA this should be on qa.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2016-0376.html