On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 12:13:45PM -0600, Jaimos Skriletz wrote: > I also see fvwm2 being used for quite a while even as fvwm3 matures.
Can we please stop calling the project "fvwm2" or "fvwm3". We've renamed it to "fvwm" ages ago. > Creating two packages that live side by side is a far greater > challenge than initially anticipated. First there are a lot of other > binaries such as fvwm-root, fvwm-config, fvwm-menu-desktop, that would > conflict, Do these not get the --program-suffix? If not, that should be fixed. > and though the --program-{prefix,suffix,transform-name} can > rename the binaries, this isn't the only conflict. The manpages for > all the common modules conflict and so does the translations/locales. > And none of these are affected by the --program-foo options. All right, but if these problems had been *reported* and not just silently dealt with in the distribution, they would have been fixed immediately back when the change from fvwm2 to fvwm was done. > I was thinking of maybe some fvwm-common package that would host the > manpages Applying the --program-suffix to the man page names should be trivial to do in the Automakefiles. > and locales, I don't know much about locales, but are they not installed in /usr/share/fvwm<program-suffix>? > but even this isn't doable since there is > already differences in the modules in fvwm2 and fvwm3, mostly it is > the modules that are available, but FvwmPager has already received > some changes in options for the RandR per monitor setup. Is is acceptable to have man pages named FvwmModule<program-suffix> in addition to the default names? If all else fails, the manpages could be put in separate packages. > Currently, I'm just gonna to go with fvwm3 conflicts with fvwm2 and > only one of those can be installed at a time. I don't like this naming scheme that suggest the version number is part of the project name. Is naming them "fvwm", "fvwm-2", "fvwm-1" not an option? Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt