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

> 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

> 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

> 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?


Dominik ^_^  ^_^


Dominik Vogt

Reply via email to