sddm-0.13.0-3.fc22
copy all scripts into /etc/sddm as %%config(noreplace)
0.13.0
sddm-0.13.0-4.fc22
Updates may require up to 24 hours to propagate to mirrors. If the following command doesn't work, please retry later:
sudo dnf upgrade --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2015-0c4711f24dPlease log in to add feedback.
This update has been submitted for testing by rdieter.
rdieter edited this update.
Thanks for the update but it only works marginally better. Screen 2 is now fully graphical (nor more boot screen residue), but it's invariably just a copy of screen 1, with dialog- and mouse-sharing.
please only give -1 if the update is worse or regressive on some way
rdieter edited this update.
New build(s):
Removed build(s):
rdieter edited this update.
This update has been pushed to testing.
Ok, no more negative karma, but the problem reported in BZ 1282046 persists, even with 0.13.0-3.
@corinna: that doesn't sound directly sddm's fault, rather Xorg using clone mode by default.
@anonymous, so why does it reproducibly work correctly with sddm-0.10.0, just (differently) incorrectly with 0.12.0 and 0.13.0? It's as if the configured Xsetup file is ignored.
Are you sure your configured Xsetup file is referenced in your sddm.conf ? Note: recent sddm builds changed the default location of configurable files to /etc/sddm (rather than /usr/share/sddm/scripts, where modifications get lost on package updates)
rdieter edited this update.
New build(s):
Removed build(s):
This update has been submitted for testing by rdieter.
This update has been pushed to testing.
I was sure I replied to rdieter's question here, too, but I must have screwed up. I wrote a detailed reply to the question in the BZ:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282046#c6
This update has reached 7 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes
Works for me (singlemonitor). Since login with multimonitor seems to be functional, even if there is a optical issue with special theme setups, I think, this should be pushed stable.
karma: +1
rdieter edited this update.
This update has been submitted for stable by rdieter.
This release is still a regression from 0.10.0 which disallows to update, so I wonder why this is deemed stable. Shouldn't the bug be fixed first?
@corinna: Please consider the guidelines for proven testers. According to them, an introduced minor bug does not necessarily mean, the package is in unstable condition: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Dafrito/Proven_tester
This update has been pushed to stable.