[fvwmorg/fvwm] db6543: Remove references to GTK

Branch: refs/heads/ta/deprecate Home: https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm Commit: db65432642674c23bc4d1ee075be6986a69810c9 https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/db65432642674c23bc4d1ee075be6986a69810c9 Author: Thomas Adam Date: 2016-06-01 (Wed, 01 Jun 2016)

[fvwmorg/fvwm] 574e27: Remove references to Setup forms/script

Branch: refs/heads/ta/deprecate Home: https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm Commit: 574e273d2f6471e2041ece41e67513da0ded8bd9 https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/574e273d2f6471e2041ece41e67513da0ded8bd9 Author: Thomas Adam Date: 2016-06-01 (Wed, 01 Jun 2016)

Re: Deprecation: Let's talk once more about removing $STUFF...

> > I still have FvwmWinList on a button in case I get some rogue window > > that FvwmProxy doesn't represent, but, honestly, it isn't a big deal. > I'd consider that a bug in FvwmProxy, in which case, please fix it. > FvwmWinList is going the way of the Dodo... I think "suppression" is a better

Re: Deprecation: Let's talk once more about removing $STUFF...

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Thomas Funk wrote: > On 05/31/2016 09:30 PM, Thomas Adam wrote: > >> >> On 19 May 2016 4:18 p.m., "Thomas Adam" tho...@fvwm.org>> wrote: >> > >> > Hey all, >> > >> > The last time this came up for conversation [0] things were

Re: Deprecation: Let's talk once more about removing $STUFF...

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Jason Weber wrote: > > I still have FvwmWinList on a button in case I get some rogue window > that FvwmProxy doesn't represent, but, honestly, it isn't a big deal. > > ​You can also use WindowList and get a list of all the windows (under certain

Re: Deprecation: Let's talk once more about removing $STUFF...

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 01:46:55PM -0700, Jason Weber wrote: > > I'll leave CPP and M4 for now as I'd like to try something with them. > > Is there something we're supposed to be using to replace FvwmM4? No. > Also, I am quietly watching to make sure you don't mention any module > I am

Re: Deprecation: Let's talk once more about removing $STUFF...

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:58:57PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > Fvwm uses FvwmTaskBar, for example in file: > > sample.fvwmrc/system.fvwm2rc-sample-95 > > Those uses need to be eliminated before the module goes. Thanks. Removed the whole lot, in favour of out-of-tree configurations via

[fvwmorg/fvwm] 798983: Remove sample\.fvwmrc

Branch: refs/heads/ta/deprecate Home: https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm Commit: 79898382bfa7c8361679f06a1cbcb6d0b2f85ecd https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/79898382bfa7c8361679f06a1cbcb6d0b2f85ecd Author: Thomas Adam Date: 2016-05-31 (Tue, 31 May 2016)

Re: Deprecation: Let's talk once more about removing $STUFF...

> I'll leave CPP and M4 for now as I'd like to try something with them. Is there something we're supposed to be using to replace FvwmM4? I set it up in my .fvwm2rc 25 years ago and it seems to still be working fine. As far as I recall, it is just include(), define(), ifdef(), and ifelse(). Also,

Re: Deprecation: Let's talk once more about removing $STUFF...

Thomas Adam writes: > On 31 May 2016 9:31 p.m., "Thomas Funk" wrote: >> >> On 05/31/2016 09:30 PM, Thomas Adam wrote: >> >>> >>> On 19 May 2016 4:18 p.m., "Thomas Adam" > wrote: >>> > >>> > Hey all, >>> > >>> > The last

Re: Deprecation: Let's talk once more about removing $STUFF...

On 31 May 2016 9:31 p.m., "Thomas Funk" wrote: > > On 05/31/2016 09:30 PM, Thomas Adam wrote: > >> >> On 19 May 2016 4:18 p.m., "Thomas Adam" wrote: >> > >> > Hey all, >> > >> > The last time this came up for conversation [0] things were far from ideal. I >>

Re: Deprecation: Let's talk once more about removing $STUFF...

On 05/31/2016 09:30 PM, Thomas Adam wrote: On 19 May 2016 4:18 p.m., "Thomas Adam" > wrote: > > Hey all, > > The last time this came up for conversation [0] things were far from ideal. I > want to have another conversation about this to see

Re: Deprecation: Let's talk once more about removing $STUFF...

On 19 May 2016 4:18 p.m., "Thomas Adam" wrote: > > Hey all, > > The last time this came up for conversation [0] things were far from ideal. I > want to have another conversation about this to see whether it's possible to > state the case why some modules in FVWM should be