On 4/24/06, Greg BOGNAR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Thomas Adam wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 08:01:50AM +0200, Greg BOGNAR wrote: > > > I don't think there is much of a difference between fvwm and > > > fvwm-gnome, and it's a bit unclear to me what the latter is supposed > > > to do differently. Fvwm-gnome depends on a bunch of stupid gnome > > > libraries, which is a good reason not to use it (just what is supposed > > > to be the advantage of them?). > > > > That's the package maintainer seeing 'FvwmGTK' and panicking. For some > > reason, he doesn't think reading the documentation is a prerequisite to > > packaging FVWM. Before he split the packages into fvwm and fvwm-gnome, > > fvwm would depend on all of that GNOME stuff. > > But then it's a good thing he did, isn't it, since now you can have > fvwm without those libraries... So I'm not sure why I'd need to > compile it myself (using the pre-packaged debs are just more > convenient).
No it's not: if you want gtk support you would need fvwm-gnome. And that pulls out all gnome, when it is not needed. There's no middle term. I'm convincing myself each day that packagers don't use the half software they package. And that's as serious as a sys-admin that doesn't use the OS he maintains - I have that problem in my university, as the linux sys-admins don't use it in their day-to-day lie. The result is a buggy and sometimes unusable system. Cheers. Renato
