Re: FVWM: Why is Debian behind schedule regarding recent FVWM versions so much?
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 06:05:52PM -0700, Jaimos Skriletz wrote: > > > > Hm. > > I remember when I did it last time that it was a lg > > odyssey finding out which libraries were needed, finding > > the libraries, finding other libraries from which the libraries > > depend and so on. For newbies, this was definitely not an > > acceptable way. The reason why I write and publish my own howtos > > is exactly this: The experts throw one-liners like > > "./configure --prefix=/usr && make deb-inplace" around and say > > how easy all is, and then you sit there and nothing works, > > because the experts forgot to say that there are concepts > > like "dependencies". > > > > Thank you for your hint. I will test this line next time: > > ./configure --prefix=/usr && make deb-inplace > > > > But even if this one line will work, I will have to document > > it, because some kind of knowledge is not easy to find > > in the Internet. > as for using 'make deb-inplace', it makes a .deb file just fine and it > should install on your system (Works here for me on debian sid). This is > old and outdated and a newer debian/ dir should be used to be more in line > with the newer debian specification and I belive thomas did some work on > this and has a newer debian/ on his git server, though I never have gotten > around to trying it to compile a debian package. It's here: https://github.com/ThomasAdam/fvwm/tree/ta/add-debian-dir Which removes the blasted debian/ directory we ship, pulls in Manoj's one, and mangles the Changelog file for it, etc. It's not brilliant, but it's a start. That way, we can still keep zealots of this debian/ directory happy, without us shipping our own, something Debian discourages, and I agree with. The sooner this debian/ directory goes, the better. The same likely holds true for the rpm/ directory, but I don't use any Linux distributions which use such an arcane packaging system. :P -- Thomas Adam
Re: FVWM: Why is Debian behind schedule regarding recent FVWM versions so much?
On Monday, 23 January 2012 at 18:05, Jaimos Skriletz wrote: > The last note is the debian package for some reason (I am still unsure > why Manjo did this) has an epoch version and the package you made will > not. Because of this epoch version the version in the debian repos > 1:2.5.30 is considered greater than the version you compiled 2.6.3 for > instance, and if you upgrade/dist-upgrade you system it will install > the version from the debian repo effectivally downgrading your fvwm > package. To prevent this you need to put the fvwm package on hold Looks like a typo in 2005 was the cause: fvwm (2.5.130.CVS.2005.07.19.01-1) unstable; urgency=low fvwm (1:2.5.13-0.CVS.2005.08.08.01-1) unstable; urgency=low So to have apt recognize the 2.5.13 package as larger than 2.5.130, the epoch was necessary. Solution: set the epoch of dpkg scripts in the source distribution to something like 10, then it'll take a while until the repo package overrides the custom one (assuming that someone who compiles a custom package doesn't want it autoupgraded to a repo package at some random point in time).
Re: FVWM: Why is Debian behind schedule regarding recent FVWM versions so much?
> > Hm. > I remember when I did it last time that it was a lg > odyssey finding out which libraries were needed, finding > the libraries, finding other libraries from which the libraries > depend and so on. For newbies, this was definitely not an > acceptable way. The reason why I write and publish my own howtos > is exactly this: The experts throw one-liners like > "./configure --prefix=/usr && make deb-inplace" around and say > how easy all is, and then you sit there and nothing works, > because the experts forgot to say that there are concepts > like "dependencies". > > Thank you for your hint. I will test this line next time: > ./configure --prefix=/usr && make deb-inplace > > But even if this one line will work, I will have to document > it, because some kind of knowledge is not easy to find > in the Internet. I've been compiling my own fvwm debian packages for some time and here are some additional hints. For dependencies the ones in Manjo's package are somewhat sane (as in they will work unless you care enough to limit some of them, you can install them all wth a single apt-get command) you can just type apt-get build-dep fvwm You may need/want to install build-essential as well. as for using 'make deb-inplace', it makes a .deb file just fine and it should install on your system (Works here for me on debian sid). This is old and outdated and a newer debian/ dir should be used to be more in line with the newer debian specification and I belive thomas did some work on this and has a newer debian/ on his git server, though I never have gotten around to trying it to compile a debian package. The last note is the debian package for some reason (I am still unsure why Manjo did this) has an epoch version and the package you made will not. Because of this epoch version the version in the debian repos 1:2.5.30 is considered greater than the version you compiled 2.6.3 for instance, and if you upgrade/dist-upgrade you system it will install the version from the debian repo effectivally downgrading your fvwm package. To prevent this you need to put the fvwm package on hold echo "fvwm hold" | dpkg --set-selections For those other fvwm debain users out there I hope this is of some help jaimos
Re: FVWM: Why is Debian behind schedule regarding recent FVWM versions so much?
> Original-Nachricht > Datum: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:41:03 +0100 (CET) > Von: "Thomas Funk" > An: "Michael Großer" , fvwm@fvwm.org > Betreff: Aw: Re: FVWM: Why is Debian behind schedule regarding recent FVWM >versions so much? > > Hi Michael, > > > My decision is for sure now that I will show my readers a way > > how to download a current FVWM version, compile it and install > > it on Debian systems. > > You can build a Debian package very easily with the following commands: > ./configure --prefix=/usr && make deb-inplace > This is implemented in Fvwm since ages (thanks to Thomas for that hint ;) > ) > > Thomas > -- > What is the exact difference between a 'terminal', a 'shell', a 'tty' and > a > 'console'? > A terminal is at the end of an electric wire, a shell is the home of a > turtle, tty is a strange abbreviation and a console is a kind of cabinet. > > -- Gilles > Hm. I remember when I did it last time that it was a lg odyssey finding out which libraries were needed, finding the libraries, finding other libraries from which the libraries depend and so on. For newbies, this was definitely not an acceptable way. The reason why I write and publish my own howtos is exactly this: The experts throw one-liners like "./configure --prefix=/usr && make deb-inplace" around and say how easy all is, and then you sit there and nothing works, because the experts forgot to say that there are concepts like "dependencies". Thank you for your hint. I will test this line next time: ./configure --prefix=/usr && make deb-inplace But even if this one line will work, I will have to document it, because some kind of knowledge is not easy to find in the Internet. Michael -- michael.gros...@gmx.de 030/76 21 88 28 0177/578 5 578
Re: FVWM: Why is Debian behind schedule regarding recent FVWM versions so much?
Thomas Adam wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:17:29PM +0100, michael.gros...@gmx.de wrote: >> But, the idea of a distribution like Debian is to get >> stable software onto the computer by typing >> "apt-get install something". Each exception I have to make >> erodes the whole idea of a ready-to-use Linux distribution. > > Use a different distro? No way. >> Does anybody know why even Sid is behind schedule that much? > > The maintainer often goes AWOL; this is not news, and anyone who's really > wanting to use FVWM via apt-get just build their own .deb file. > > Either way, go pester Manoj about this, as I have done so many times > already, but I care not to discuss such things here as they're off-topic. I see now that it does not make sense to pester Manoj myself. He didn't answer my request too. My decision is for sure now that I will show my readers a way how to download a current FVWM version, compile it and install it on Debian systems. I even will deliberately commit a language inconsistency by describing the FVWM related topics in English (and not in German) and try to encapsulate it a little bit from the rest of my how-tos in order to show German and non-German readers a way how to use Debian Linux *AND* FVWM together. Then, nobody will need Manoj anymore :-)
Re: FVWM: Why is Debian behind schedule regarding recent FVWM versions so much?
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:17:29PM +0100, michael.gros...@gmx.de wrote:
> But, the idea of a distribution like Debian is to get
> stable software onto the computer by typing
> "apt-get install something". Each exception I have to make
> erodes the whole idea of a ready-to-use Linux distribution.
Use a different distro?
> Does anybody know why even Sid is behind schedule that much?
The maintainer often goes AWOL; this is not news, and anyone who's really
wanting to use FVWM via apt-get just build their own .deb file.
Either way, go pester Manoj about this, as I have done so many times
already, but I care not to discuss such things here as they're off-topic.
-- Thomas Adam
--
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
FVWM: Why is Debian behind schedule regarding recent FVWM versions so much?
Was: Re: FVWM: [worksforme] FVWM does not update the window title when the new
window title contains a unicode character
Now: Why is Debian behind schedule regarding recent FVWM versions so much?
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:05:15 +
> Von: Thomas Adam
> An: "Michael Großer"
> CC: fvwm@fvwm.org
> Betreff: Re: FVWM: [worksforme] FVWM does not update the window title when
> the new window title contains a unicode character
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 09:59:28AM +0100, Michael Großer wrote:
> > but it solved my problem with FVWM version 2.5.30.
>
> That version is not supported. I know Debian is falling behind something
> chronic with keeping up to date, but I won't want to hear any bug reports
> from you which aren't against either 2.6.3 or more preferrably the CVS
> version taken from branch-2_6.
>
> -- Thomas Adam
>
> --
> "Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am
> not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
>
I plan to use at least KVM and FVWM directly from upstream on
further systems, because these packages are the most important.
But, the idea of a distribution like Debian is to get
stable software onto the computer by typing
"apt-get install something". Each exception I have to make
erodes the whole idea of a ready-to-use Linux distribution.
My Wheezy and Sid systems, wich were up-to-date during
Christmas, also come with FVWM "2.5.30". This seems to be
true until now:
http://packages.debian.org/lenny/fvwm
--> fvwm (1:2.5.26-1)
http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/fvwm
--> fvwm (1:2.5.30.ds-1)
http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/fvwm
--> fvwm (1:2.5.30.ds-1)
http://packages.debian.org/sid/fvwm
--> fvwm (1:2.5.30.ds-1 and others)
Does anybody know why even Sid is behind schedule that much?
