On 11 Apr 2002 12:02:17 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > > I wonder what the various distros will do, they've been distributing > fvwm1 as fvwm for a long time now.
It is trivial to patch an ancient fvwm to produce fvwm1 executable. But I don't really think we should encourage distributions to continue to distribute fvwm-1.24r version. > I'm curious, what do you intend to do with the .fvwm2rc? To discuss this first. My point is this. If we want others to think we have only one evolving project, we should not use number suffixes. I think: 1) Executable name should always be fvwm, regardless of a version. 2) The initial configuration file name should not be changed as well. This is because version numbers have nothing magical. My guess is that 2.5.1 is much more different from 2.0.1, than 3.0.0 will be from 2.6.0. I do think that ~/.fvwm/.fvwm2rc name is bad. But it should be supported for some time, of course. It is bad, because this is a main file, it should not be hidden. ~/.fvwm directory (or /use/share/fvwm for this purpose) is for fvwm files only, so having .fvwm prefix is redudant. And "2". Something like ~/.fvwm/config or ~/.fvwm/main would be ok. I am not against (although I think it is not needed) if we introduce an extention for fvwmrc files. I.e.: ~/.fvwm/main.fvwm or ~/.fvwm/main.fc. Any of the suggested names above (or similar) would be good for me. 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]
