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

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:20:22PM -0600, Jaimos Skriletz wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Thomas Adam wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:21:51AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > > Any lasting objections before this is merged and we can move onto the next > > phase with

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

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Thomas Adam wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:21:51AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > Any lasting objections before this is merged and we can move onto the next > phase with is introducing a default configuration? > > ​I have some ideas on a default

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

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:21:51AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > We put in place something different. We've had proposals about that in the > past (Nick Fortune). I'm wanting to hear from others about what that might > look like. Call for last orders, Gentlemen... Any lasting objections before

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

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:08:24PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > What they gain, and what it was meant for, is new users curious about > Fvwm. Without a config, the casual user will get no where > and most likely look somewhere else. > The WM came up and you couldn't even create a window. > Previous

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

2016-05-19 17:18 GMT+02:00 Thomas Adam : > As I understand it, FVWM was written with extensibility in mind, and hence > could be extended through the use of modules. Although the core of FVWM is > quite a bit larger now (read: some of the things ther could be modules, but >

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

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:25:22PM +0200, Thomas Funk wrote: > On 06/02/2016 10:53 PM, Thomas Adam wrote: > > Perl is my $DAYJOB, I'm more than capable. It's just low on my list. > I don't want to offend you with my offer ... I'm only want to relieve you Oh, not at all. But there's a lot more

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

On 06/02/2016 10:53 PM, Thomas Adam wrote: Perl is my $DAYJOB, I'm more than capable. It's just low on my list. I don't want to offend you with my offer ... I'm only want to relieve you But hey, no prob ... Best, Thomas -- -- "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and

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

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:50:50PM +0200, Thomas Funk wrote: > That's not completely true because Gtk3-Perl isn't that stable as Gtk2-perl. > That's the point why I decided to use Gtk2-perl for SimpleGtk2 [0]. There're > not much examples and documentation available as for Gtk2-perl. Gtk3-perl >

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

On 06/02/2016 10:39 PM, Thomas Adam wrote: It has to transition to GTK3. Otherwise it's just as stale as GTK1.x is now in terms of how well it has not been maintained. That's not completely true because Gtk3-Perl isn't that stable as Gtk2-perl. That's the point why I decided to use Gtk2-perl

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

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:35:48PM +0200, Thomas Funk wrote: > I'm using its code as a base for a Fvwm module to use SimpleGtk2 for my > Fvwm-Nightshade GUIs invoked by Fvwm. It isn't a problem for me that you have > removed it but it shows very nice how to create a module derived from >

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

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:07:27PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > In the case of FvwmForm and the Setup Form, I think you've eliminated > something that I remember at least one poster using. It's not the > best part of Fvwm, but the Setup Form gets a certain class of users > from befuddled to a

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

Thomas Adam writes: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 08:44:23PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: >> If you want to open this can of worms, I think some streamlining might >> be in order, that's up to you. I think it's a very good thing that Fvwm >> has at least a minimal way to create a

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

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 08:44:23PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > If you want to open this can of worms, I think some streamlining might > be in order, that's up to you. I think it's a very good thing that Fvwm > has at least a minimal way to create a working configuration without > resorting to

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

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

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

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 01:07:26PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > Seemed like a valid use. Not sure if our condition testing > can do the same thing: > > #if PLANES > 8 > + TitleStyle LeftJustified\ > ActiveUp (\ > HGradient 128 2 rgb:FF/00/00 70 rgb:88/00/88 30 rgb:00/00/ff)\ >

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

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 08:27:54PM +0200, Stefan Blachmann wrote: > Personally I'd rather prefer to keep FvwmWinList as I use it myself > and am not really eager spend time to modify my config, as I use it as > a sort of life saver rarely only when I lost track where a particular > window is. I'm

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

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:57:17AM -0600, Jaimos Skriletz wrote: > ​I do agree that FvwmTaskBar should be deprecated and FvwmIconMan should be > used instead, but my experience is FvwmIconMan was not easy to create a > config that behaved like the simple FvwmTaskBar, and I still think many are >

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

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 01:07:26PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > I'm not using anything else you mentioned, so no problem. > But I'm unsure what problem some of them cause just hanging around. They're not used, and are bit-rotting. Almost all of the Fvwm modules I've listed here fall into the

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

In addition to what Jaimos said, at least in my impression FvwmWinList is still being used much. I saw it in quite a few out-of-the-box fvwm configs supplied by various linux and other unixoid OS distros. So I guess dropping it could cause some work for maintainers etc. Thus I think Jaimos' idea

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

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Dan Espen wrote: > Just had an opportunity to look at Fvwm.Org, it looks pretty nice. > I thought we were going to retain the themeing, but I don't see it. > Not a real problem. > ​ > ​Being a static site and only using html and javascript

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

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Thomas Adam wrote: > > * FvwmTaskBar -- Use FvwmIconMan. > > ​I do agree that FvwmTaskBar should be deprecated and FvwmIconMan should be used instead, but my experience is FvwmIconMan was not easy to create a config that behaved like the simple

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

Thomas Adam writes: > 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 removed. > > As I understand it,