On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
"John Meissen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Adam said:
> > 2008/8/6 Robert Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> I use the FvwmIconBox, so I have these lines in my .fvwmrc file:
> >
> > That's a pity.
>
> Why the sarcasm?
>
> Making that sort of judgmental statement without justification doesn't
> do anything to facilitate understanding.
Woah there, lad. It's my fault, the *rest* of that paragraph seemingly
went walkies when I sent the email. It was pre-coffee, so I suppose I
might have hit the wrong key combination in Vim. Sometimes these
things happen.
It's a pity, only because FvwmIconBox is different from the IconBox
style. Generally when talking about the positioning of icons one
really does mean the IconBox style (and was applicable directly to the
OP's question). Sure FvwmIconBox allows for some definable features,
but it has problems with EWMH icon management and I've not yet looked
into the reasons why that might be.
> I've been following the list for a while now because I'm in a similar
> situation. I used FVWM for years, and had to abandon it because when
> I updated my system the configuration had changed enough that I
> couldn't reconstruct what I had before. I've been limping with
> Enlightenment while I try to understand how to get back. Your comment
> doesn't help at all.
Rather than lay into me for a misconstrued comment, please do list
these things you say were problematic for you. I would also like to
know what version of FVWM you were running before you upgraded and to
what version. Do you still have this config file?
Yes, there were significant changes from FVWM 1.x -> FVWM 2.x and yes,
some changes from FVWM 2.3.x to FVWM 2.4.x were problematic (but much
less than the jump from 1.X -> 2.x given the circumstances) -- but even
going from FVWM 2.4.X -> 2.5.x is fine. OK, one replaces FvwmTheme
with the inbuilt colorset stuff, but that's about it. I can only
assume then that you're in a similar state as the OP as well? That
being the case, watch this space...
> If I recall, one or both of which used to be right. So are they wrong
> because they're not used anymore, or because they're used for
> something else and aren't appropriate?
No, they're not wrong -- the use of IconPath and PixmapPath is -- both
their separate locations are in the default ImagePath command which
replaces the need for {Icon,Pixmap}Path entirely.
> The FVWM config used to be clean and simple. It's now very different,
> and much more procedural. What little docs there are don't help much,
> so this list is the primary source for understanding. I would like to
> understand, as I'm sure the OP would. More explanation and less short,
> snappy answers would help.
Given the entirety of this email is one bitching session anyway, please
do reply to this with some concrete examples, then I and others can
help you.
-- Thomas Adam
--
"It was the cruelest game I've ever played and it's played inside my
head." -- "Hush The Warmth", Gorky's Zygotic Mynci.
