On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:41:02PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > Dominik Vogt <dominik.v...@gmx.de> writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:08:44PM -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > >> Not sure I want to work in the mvwm tree. > >> Not fond of the name, > > > > Neither me, but more because the "M" gets in the way with tab > > completion in the subsirs (also matches Makefile*). > > I want to avoid the impression of a fork,
Me too, but at the moment I do that by telling people it's not a fork. At least, changing the name temporarily was a good exercise to identify all the places with references to the name. > and F=Feline is fine with me. :-) > But our poor Angel died and I'm too old for another cat. Even if 15+ years for a kitten may be too long, you can have an old cat. > > I think at the moment it should also be possible to add the fvwm > > modules to the module path and use them with the new core. If not, > > I'm interested in finding out what has to be done to make them > > compatible. Fvwm probably has some compatibility check that might > > prevent it. > > Not sure what you mean with the last paragraph. > The built in module path should deal with running multiple versions > of modules. I usually install fvwm to something like: > > ~/fvwm/2.6.6/ <-- version number, but could be anything. I meant to put this in .mvwmrc: ModulePath +:<somepath>/libexec/fvwm/2.6.6 Then it should be possible to run fvwm modules under the new core until we have a better solution. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
