Re: Bug in Enlightenment?

[Daniel Burrows <Daniel_Burrows brown edu>]

On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 06:59:14PM -0500, Bruce Z. Lysik was heard to say:
> Hi there.
> 
> I'm noticing a /serious/ bug in Enlightenment (from the CVS) right
> now.  At least I think it's from Enlightenment.
> 
> Basically things start up okay, but after a while I'm unable to change 
> focus to one window.  Then another, then another.  Even killing the
> process doesn't completely solve the problem.  I'm left with a big,
> black window frame that the process was running in.
> 
> Anyone else see this, or have a solution?  Thanks.
>   

  Since you posted this, I've run into something similar.  I'm running a
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 system with the Enlightenment CVS .debs from
http://www.debian.org/~bma/e-cvs/ and the Hand of God theme.  If I de-iconify an
Eterm and _immediately_ move the mouse into it, the boundary momentarily
flashes "active" and then switches to "inactive".  When this happens, I can't
manipulate the window in any way, either with the window controls or by clicking
on the frame, but it still sits there on my screen and the decorations and
client window still get redrawn.  Killing the process does indeed give me a
big black box with window decorations.  When I de-iconify an Eterm in normal
circumstances, the boundary flashes "active" and then switches to "inactive",
but it can normally gain focus.  I think that perhaps the bug appears if the
mouse is moved into the window while it is "active", that perhaps the reason
I mainly see it in Eterms is that Eterms take longer to appear than other
windows (because of often having to de-swap or at least load and display the
huge transparent background pixmaps), and that perhaps the reason Raster doesn't
see it is that his computer is so fast that there is no time for him to get the
mouse into a window when it's in between being focused and unfocused. (for
lack of a better phrase)  Even on my fairly slow one, I have to move the mouse
very quickly to trigger it.

-- 
  Daniel Burrows

  Nothing is hopeless.

  PROOF:
(a) Assume the opposite.
(b) If something _is_ hopeless, then its condition can only improve.
(c) If its condition can only improve, then there must be hope for it.
(d) Therefore, nothing is hopeless.  QED.

PGP signature