On 7/12/06, seventh guardian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/12/06, Thomas Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 05:02:23PM -0000, Eduardo Gargiulo wrote:
> > Which could be the (dis)advantages on using fvwm-gnome instead of
> > fvwm?
>
> A shed-load of useless libraries you won't ever need.
True, but that's what you get when you use a precompiled distro.. It's
a one-package-for-all compromise..
> fvwm-gnome
> represents everything that the idiot of a maintainer has done in seeing
> FvwmGTK and thinking "ooh, GNOME!" and henceforth linked all manner of
> superfluous libs against it.
As I said, you probably wouldn't need bidi support, but if some guy
needs it the package must have it precompiled. Being a static program,
this is the only solution.
The only way fvwm could be compiled in a one-package-for-all without
requiring all these libs was using *.so 's..
Let me correct myself ;) fvwm is not static! The question is, can it
handle the absense of some required lib..
Renato
Renato
>See here:
>
> http://fvwmwiki.org/Installation/InstallationPackages
>
> -- Thomas Adam
>
> --
> "If I were a witch's hat, sitting on her head like a paraffin stove, I'd
> fly away and be a bat." -- Incredible String Band.
>
>
