notification area doesn't work properly under compiz

[Guiodic (Guido Iodice)]

Binary package hint: compiz

== Regression details ==
Discovered in version: 0.9.4
Last known good version: 0.8.6

using compiz in ubuntu classic session, many applications like skype and qbittorrent don't show icons in the notification area. Instead you can see a single pixel. Using metacity or mutter seems work well.

[Guiodic (Guido Iodice) (guido-iodice)]

I tried compiz 0.8.6 from maverick forward-ported to natty and it doesn't have the bug.

[Guiodic (Guido Iodice) (guido-iodice)]

This bug is related to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-panel/+bug/767095 so the question is: Is it a gnome-panel or a compiz bug?

[Guiodic (Guido Iodice) (guido-iodice)]

This is NOT a duplicate of #755234
That bug is related to Unity, this one is related to gnome-panel.
If Unity (and Unity 2d) has the same issue, it should be a compiz bug.

[Adam Łyskawa (a-lyskawa)]

Tested on Ubuntu 11.04 and Mint 11. Fully reproducible.

Steps to reproduce:

1. log on to Gnome (no effects) desktop
2. sudo apt-get install fusion-icon (will be used to test settings)
3. sudo apt-get install keepassx (just a sample Qt application, can be skype or any other),
4. change KeePassX (or any other Qt application) settings to display tray icon,
5. if the tray icon appears correctly, just restart Qt app (icon should be reduced to 1 pixel, if not, repeat restarting)
6. use Fusion Icon to change window manager to Metacity,
7. restart Qt application a few times - now the tray icon should appear correctly each start
8. switch back window manager to Compiz
9. restart Qt application a few times - the tray icon disappears most of the time

Note that due to random behavior all user submitted "workarounds" are misleading, because none of them really works (except disabling Compiz or restarting gnome-panel in any way). People (including myself) notice, they change this and that, and suddenly the icon appears. But it's random. It's not a result of any particular user activity.

The one and only workaround for this problem is replacing the window manager with metacity.

This bug could be also posted as gnome, gnome-panel, gnome-notification-area bug, but it's really difficult to tell what's wrong here. As my test procedure shows - the problem is somewhere between gnome-panel and Compiz.

This bug is a major blocker for people still using Gnome 2.

[Guiodic (Guido Iodice) (guido-iodice)]

> the problem is somewhere between gnome-panel and Compiz.

Surely it is, so I removed the link as a duplicate of a gnome-panel related bug.

I 'm using compiz 0.8.6 on Natty and the issue is not present.

Then, the bug should be fixed in compiz or in gnome-panel but this isn't clear at this moment.

[Eliah Kagan (degeneracypressure)]

Is there any reason this bug should not be marked as a duplicate of bug 767095? (That bug is newer but it has considerably more subscribers, a much higher count of affected users, and significantly more progress has been made on it, as can be seen by examining its statuses in various packages. Specifically, it has been assigned High importance in Natty. If this is marked a duplicate of bug 767095, then if judged appropriate, perhaps compiz could be added to that bug as an affected package.)

[Guiodic (Guido Iodice) (guido-iodice)]

<i>and significantly more progress has been made on it</i>

what progress?

[Guiodic (Guido Iodice) (guido-iodice)]

I marked this bug as a duplicate of lp #767095, again, and I added compiz as affected package.

[Eliah Kagan (degeneracypressure)]

@Guiodic "what progress?"
Perhaps "significantly more progress" was a bit too strong. But bug 767095 is marked Confirmed, has been assigned High importance in Natty, has considerable more discussion than this bug, is marked to affect six times as many people as this bug, and has considerably more subscribers as well. It seems to be the "primary" bug in which this problem is being worked on (even if very little actual work on it is being done, right now).

Has this bug been marked as a duplicate of bug 767095 in the past (before just today, when you marked it as such)? Was it, at some point, considered not to be a duplicate? (You don't have to answer that question; it doesn't seem important that it be explained right now, and I don't want to waste your time.)