--- Peter Valchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This has been considered before and we came to the > conclusion to simply stick to the -stable release. > There is no reason to have every single development > version of software inside the ports tree... > unless there is a very good reason, but in > the case of fvwm2, I don't really see it.
May I drop a little possible reason here? FVWM-Crystal needs FVWM 2.5.13+. -- Official site: http://fvwm-crystal.org/ -- Reviews and references: http://polishlinux.org/apps/fvwm-crystal-speed-and-transparency/ http://beranger.org/index.php?article=1273 http://miguel.moquillon.free.fr/miguel/articles/fvwm-crystal.html IMHO, there is indeed no reason to use fvwm-unstable... unless you need fvwm-crystal, duh... Cheers, RCF/Béranger __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
