Re: fvwm for Fedora
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:34:19AM -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote: I was wondering if any of the features in those patches will eventually come into fvwm. Rounded borders for windows, translucent menus and the hover patches are the ones I am most interested in. I suspect so, yes. Just never how they've currently been implemented. Please note one thing though, and note it well: if you do decide to include these patches in some FVWM RPM, I would suggest you create a separate RPM entirely from the vanilla upstream sources, and mark that RPM as being completely on its own without endorsement from fvwm.org. I *do not* want *any* bug reports from people using a patched FVWM version. It's not supported. -- Thomas Adam
Re: fvwm for Fedora
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:50:00 + Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:34:19AM -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote: I was wondering if any of the features in those patches will eventually come into fvwm. Rounded borders for windows, translucent menus and the hover patches are the ones I am most interested in. I suspect so, yes. Just never how they've currently been implemented. Thanks very much! I hope it will be sometime relatively soon. I am personally never keen on patched versions floating around. I want to get people interested in a WM environment which is why some of these nicer-looking features are important. Which brings me to the question: I would like to change the default. I know how to do this for local accounts, using .fvwm2rc etc. My question is: what files should be changed to make this the default. To elucidate further, I am building a LiveCD (or trying to) and I think the first impression of a blank screen staring at anyone is not that great an impression. So I am suggesting providing a different default set which may or may not involve patching (this is incidental to my question, really)? Many thanks and best wishes, Ranjan
Re: fvwm for Fedora
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:11:53AM -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:56:07 + Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org wrote: On 20 March 2012 05:23, Ranjan Maitra mai...@iastate.edu wrote: So, I just wanted to be sure: none of the above-mentioned packages are of much use anymore, is that correct? Correct. Also, are any of the patches in the ArchLinux/Gentoo builds already included/proposed to be so in fvwm? I wanted to put together a local RPM for fvwm, and I therefore wanted to know. They won't be included here at upstream, no. Thanks again! May I ask: is the reasoning behind prohibiting inclusion of these features upstream philosophical, or is it that it increases code complexity or resource usage overhead substantially (or something similar)? If the latter, of course that is far more serious, and would be helpful to know. I fail to see why it matters, but it's simply that the code those patches touch is obsolete and will be replaced, versus some questionable decisions in *how* those patches work, as well as them lacking in functionality for hard-coding assumptions, no documentation, etc. -- Thomas Adam
Re: fvwm for Fedora
Also, are any of the patches in the ArchLinux/Gentoo builds already included/proposed to be so in fvwm? I wanted to put together a local RPM for fvwm, and I therefore wanted to know. They won't be included here at upstream, no. Thanks again! May I ask: is the reasoning behind prohibiting inclusion of these features upstream philosophical, or is it that it increases code complexity or resource usage overhead substantially (or something similar)? If the latter, of course that is far more serious, and would be helpful to know. I fail to see why it matters, but it's simply that the code those patches touch is obsolete and will be replaced, versus some questionable decisions in *how* those patches work, as well as them lacking in functionality for hard-coding assumptions, no documentation, etc. Thanks very much! This is actually very useful to know, since I have been considering using these patches. I was wondering if any of the features in those patches will eventually come into fvwm. Rounded borders for windows, translucent menus and the hover patches are the ones I am most interested in. Many thanks again! Best wishes, Ranjan
Re: fvwm for Fedora
Hi, Thanks again for responding to my e-mail! On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:06:49 + Thomas Adam tho...@fvwm.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:18:14PM -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote: Hi, I have been looking at the fvwm RPM for fedora and i noticed that the following patches are in there: fvwm-0005-Explicitly-link-against-fontconfig.patch This has long since been fixed in 2.6.X, AFAIK. fvwm-2.5.21-menu-generate.patch Redundant with fvwm-menu-desktop, although work is underway to improve it. fvwm-2.5.30-mimeopen.patch fvwm-2.5.30-more-mouse-buttons.patch fvwm-2.5.30-xdg-open.patch For these, see: http://www.mail-archive.com/fvwm-workers@fvwm.org/msg02776.html There is also the following: fvwm-xdg-menu.py Redundant? From looking at the archives, it is not clear to me if the last one should be included/excluded? Are any of the above no longer necessary for fvwm-2.6.4? See above. Separately, I also was wondering: do any of these patches conflict with the following more commonly used patches (for Gentoo/ArchLinux)? No. They're not supported. Finally, does anyone here know what is going on wrt Fedora's fvwm? Bugzilla requests there do not seem to have been even checked out for months, sometimes years, and it is not clear whether the WM has any support or not. I'm hoping Jason Tibbitts will respond as he knows a little about what Fedora do, but as far as I am concerned, I only work with what's posted here, upstream. Hence, if you don't report bugs, they won't get fixed. -- Thomas Adam So, I just wanted to be sure: none of the above-mentioned packages are of much use anymore, is that correct? Also, are any of the patches in the ArchLinux/Gentoo builds already included/proposed to be so in fvwm? I wanted to put together a local RPM for fvwm, and I therefore wanted to know. Does Jason Tibbitts have involvement with the Fedora RPM? From what I see there, it appears to be maintained by someone called Peter Lemenkov: however, there has been very little action there for a long time? Many thanks and best wishes, Ranjan
