Bugzilla – Bug 612834
kde4 touchpad configuration dialog does not allow to enable two-finger scrolling
Last modified: 2011-01-09 18:11:39 UTC
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/4.4; Linux) KHTML/4.4.3 (like Gecko) SUSE The touchpad configuration dialog in kde4's systemsettings has checkboxes to enable vertical and horizontal scrolling with two fingers, but they are greyed out and can't be checked. Manually enabling two-finger scrolling works using xinput. But putting the appropriate lines into .xinitrc or .xsession does not help, since kde4 seems to reset these values upon startup. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. open the mouse & touchpad configuration dialog in the kde systemsettings 2. go to Touchpad -> Touchpad configutation -> Scrolling 3. notice the greyed-out checkboxes which are supposed to give you two-finger scrolling Actual Results: checkboxes are greyed out, can't be checked. Expected Results: Checkboxes should be checkable, giving the user two-finger scrolling.
Created attachment 368115 [details] screenshot of the touchpad configuration dialog Added a screenshot of the configuration window that shows the greyed-out checkboxes.
In the panel "Touchpad-Informationen" (german localization), it displays that my touchpad recognized only one finger. I can't change that value. But my touchpad can do more and two-finger scrolling works perfectly when I enable it via synclient or xinput. So probably this problem is due to insufficient detection of hardware?
Problem still exists in GM.
Probably a duplicate of bug 658800 Could you test the package mentioned there?
(In reply to comment #4) > Probably a duplicate of bug 658800 Bug 658800 is more recent than this one, so strictly speaking 658800 is a duplicate of this bug ;) . > Could you test the package mentioned there? I tested it, it works. That is, it lets me enable Two-Finger Scrolling. However, the option of assigning two- and three-finger taps to mouse actions is still greyed out.
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Probably a duplicate of bug 658800 > > Bug 658800 is more recent than this one, so strictly speaking 658800 is a > duplicate of this bug ;) . > I know, but the other one had the (for me) more useful information. So I hope you do not mind if I close this one as dup and follow up in the other report. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 658800 ***