On 07 Jul 2001 10:38:03 +0700, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote: > > First, the package is named "fvwm", not "fvwm2", which prevents > it from being a drop-in replacement for RedHat's RPM.
Should our rpm be a drop-in replacement for the RedHat's rpm? In fact both may coexist happily together. Then a user has 2 fvwm versions 2.2.x and 2.4.x and may use one or another or uninstall RedHat's one. Think about this, if we follow your path and have fvwm2 package which is compatible with the current RedHat's rpm, we end up with rpm incompatible with the SuSE one, which includes icons together with fvwm2 rpm, unlike RedHat, which has them in a separate package. It will also be incompatible with the Mandrake one, which adds a menu entry to some place. The only good solution for us is to have the rpm, which is fully distribution independent and let distributions to do what they want. Optionally we may add more distribution specific rpms, which use the same distribution independent file naming convention (this is important). > It "-provides" the "fvwm" capability, which is a bit wrong, since > there's no "fvwm" binary inside. The fvwm rpm provides "fvwm" capability, I don't see anything wrong. "rpm -ql fvwm | grep fvwm | grep -v fvwm2 | wc -l" gives 100 files. "rpm -ql fvwm | grep fvwm2 | wc -l" gives only 5. Sounds reasonable? > Additionaly, some people still use fvwm-1.24, and > naming the current version simply "fvwm" will confuse them (since > recommended "rpm -Uvh" will remove fvwm-1). Well, by this logic, some people still use RedHat's fvwm2-2.2.x; if we name it fvwm2-2.4.x, this will uninstall an older rpm and confuse people. >From the developers point of view 1.x is not preferable over 2.2.x, both are old versions of the same program. > Is it possible to rename the package to fvwm2? (Yes, fvwm2-2.4 > looks a bit weird, but it is an existing practice). This practice is not good. There is only one supported fvwm version, the package with it should be called fvwm. If a distribution for some reason wants to keep fvwm-1.24r, it may call the package fvwm1-1.24r, which _is_ an existing practice for many other packages. > Second, the fvwm-2.4.0-2.rh7.rpm doesn't include any config files > in proper places, so that when a freshly installed fvwm2 is run, it > complains: > > [FVWM][main]: <<ERROR>> Cannot read startup file, tried: > /export/viper/rabbit/.fvwm/.fvwm2rc > /export/viper/rabbit/.fvwm2rc > /usr/share/fvwm/.fvwm2rc > /usr/share/fvwm/system.fvwm2rc > /usr/etc/system.fvwm2rc > > BTW, it should also try /etc/X11/system.fvwm2rc and/or > /etc/X11/fvwm2/system.fvwm2rc (see FHS section 3.7.5.2). Ok, I may change sysconfdir to be /etc instead of /usr/etc. But this is not really important, because we suggest to use /usr[/local]/share/fvwm for all system wide configs, not /etc. Compare with emacs package, it also does not search in /etc. The rpms that we provide are clean, they don't include any current distribution additions. If you install from tarballs "make install" does not install any config file, rpm does the same. Initial rc files are not needed for most of people, who may: * use their existing rc files * create initial rc files using FvwmForm-Setup (try an initial menu) * create initial rc files using FvwmScript-Setup95 (also in menu) * install fvwm-themes rpm and run fvwm-themes-start instead of fvwm2 > If nobody else bothers, I can make appropriate patch for spec file. Feel free to suggest changes, but I would keep them clean, not to be RedHat specific or Mandrake specific or SuSE specific and so on. If you want to help, you may create libstroke and libstroke-devel rpms for RedHat 6.x and 7.x, which RedHat does not package. By comparison, Mandrake, Polish(ed) and now SuSE do package it. Regards, Mikhael. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
