On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 10:24:23AM +0000, Hegel3DReloaded wrote:
> On Saturday, December 4th, 2021 at 11:00 AM, Dominik Vogt
> <dominik.v...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > 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.
Exactly the same self-induced situation as with the name of
version 2. We can still change it before version 3 becomes part
of the major distros. After that it will become more complicated.
> 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.
Yes, just like many other packages where old versions for the
distros still provide old versions. For example gcc8/gcc9/gcc10
etc. Distros have a way to deal with this situation.
> 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 the person who made the patches to rename version 2 to "fvwm",
I disagree. It caused problems because there were lots of
inconsistencies in the code and in documentation. People didn't
understand that version 1 ("fvwm1" in some distros) wasn't
anything that a normal user would still want.
> As they were packing fvwm1 or fvwm, fvwm or fvwm2, let them pack
> fvwm3 I say.
Yes. Package maintainers can do that regardless of whether the
project name is "fvwm<N>" or just "fvwm".
> 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.
Okay, I don't understand this one. I'd imagine people could
appreciate version 3 more if they are aware that it's still the
same software being developed by the same people and not a fork
created over some dispute.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
