On Saturday, December 4th, 2021 at 11:00 AM, Dominik Vogt <dominik.v...@gmx.de> 

> Fvwm is the only project I'm aware of that changes its name with
> each major version.  Let's _please_ go back to "fvwm" and replace
> the 1.x versioning scheme with 3.x.  Automake + autoconf can deal
> with renaming executables if distros need that.  Both versions use
> the same config files anyway.  You cannot have version 2 and 3
> installed at the same time using the default config file.

> Some people still insist on calling fvwm-2.6.x "fvwm2".  Why?  The
> name has been "fvwm" officially since April 2002.

> The name split caused extra work and confusion back in ancient
> times.  The same thing will happen again.

As much as I may agree with this opinion, I think this shouldn't
be performed now when it is already fvwm3 for a longer time. It
is already packaging that way, and by trying to fix this can cause
counter effect, that is, introduce even more confusion.

As of old confusion, it will be here forever. Some Linux distros are
packaging FVWM 2.X as "fvwm2", and some BSD variants are even shipping
with ancient fvwm1 in the base, and providing "fvwm2" from the ports.
Weather main binary is called "fvwm" or "fvwm2", or having the same
name, one beeing in /usr/bin, the other in /usr/local/bin or wherever
is the current case.

It is not really a horror, but having something that started as "fvwm3"
as a name, going back to fvwm-3.X will be really another level of
confusion on the top of this "mild" confusion mentioned above.

As they were packing fvwm1 or fvwm, fvwm or fvwm2, let them pack
fvwm3 I say.

And last but not least, it is not som much the name IMHO, as about
quality and the power this wonderful piece of software gives to
those who know how to appreciate this.

Just my 2 cents ...


Reply via email to