On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 01:28:45AM +0200, Viktor Griph wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:16:09AM -0500, fvwm-workers wrote:
CVSROOT:/home/cvs/fvwm
Module name:fvwm
Changes by: griph 06/07/11 10:16:09
Modified files:
.
CVSROOT:/home/cvs/fvwm
Module name:fvwm
Changes by: domivogt06/07/12 03:27:26
Modified files:
. : ChangeLog configure.ac
libs : Makefile.am
modules: ChangeLog
modules/FvwmCommand: FvwmCommand.h fifos.c
Log
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 09:50:01AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 01:28:45AM +0200, Viktor Griph wrote:
Good, but I don't want new ifdefs in the code. Instead, please
add this to the end of the AH_VERBATIM macro
_ZEND_EXPLICIT_DEFINITIONS in configure.ac, beginning at line
CVSROOT:/home/cvs/fvwm
Module name:fvwm
Changes by: domivogt06/07/12 03:27:50
Modified files:
modules/FvwmCommand: fifos.c
Log message:
* Compile fix.
On 7/12/06, Dan Espen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
seventh guardian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi.
I have a question regarding the use of the ChangeLogs.
Obviously, changes to the fvwm core are reported in the root
ChangeLog. But what about changes to modules? I ask this because I've
allways
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 03:27:26AM -0500, FVWM CVS wrote:
CVSROOT: /home/cvs/fvwm
Module name: fvwm Changes by: domivogt 06/07/12 03:27:26
Modified files: . : ChangeLog configure.ac libs : Makefile.am modules
: ChangeLog modules/FvwmCommand: FvwmCommand.h fifos.c
Log message: * Removed
CVSROOT:/home/cvs/fvwm
Module name:fvwm
Changes by: domivogt06/07/12 08:28:31
Added files:
libs : fvwm_sys_stat.h
Log message:
* Added missing file.
CVSROOT:/home/cvs/fvwm
Module name:fvwm
Changes by: domivogt06/07/12 08:28:11
Modified files:
. : ChangeLog
fvwm : placement.c
Log message:
* Print initial size with ExplainWindowPlacement too.
Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 01:28:45AM +0200, Viktor Griph wrote:
but if one are really paranoid one could
add checks of the opened files in FvwmCommand.c to verify that they are
fifos with correect permissions.
Ah, but it's too late if the file is open already.
Is
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:44:22PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote:
BTW, is it my impression or you don't have an @ on your ChangeLog email?
I have. It is mostly antispam measure. Here in Russia we call this @
symbol in email addresses - dog.
Best wishes
--
Serge Koksharov, Free Software user
Hello.
Having looked at FvwmGtk code, I realise there's no need for gnome
support, as no gnome specific functions are used. So, there's no
advantage of calling gnome_init vs gtk_init. And from what I see, the
gnome support has been several times mis-used by precompiled distros
(forcing the
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:24:57PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote:
Hello.
Having looked at FvwmGtk code, I realise there's no need for gnome
support, as no gnome specific functions are used. So, there's no
advantage of calling gnome_init vs gtk_init. And from what I see, the
gnome support has
On 7/12/06, Thomas Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:24:57PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote:
Hello.
Having looked at FvwmGtk code, I realise there's no need for gnome
support, as no gnome specific functions are used. So, there's no
advantage of calling gnome_init vs
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:44:51PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote:
But in what refers to FvwmGtk, it works exactly the same without gnome
support. The final question is, is it worth remove gnome support from
FvwmGtk if the rest of fvwm still needs it...
FvwmGTK is just that -- turning various
seventh guardian a écrit :
On 7/12/06, Thomas Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:24:57PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote:
Hello.
Having looked at FvwmGtk code, I realise there's no need for gnome
support, as no gnome specific functions are used. So, there's no
On 7/13/06, Olivier Chapuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
seventh guardian a écrit :
On 7/12/06, Thomas Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:24:57PM +0100, seventh guardian wrote:
Hello.
Having looked at FvwmGtk code, I realise there's no need for gnome
support, as no
Hello,
In question 7.17 of the FVWM FAQ Autohiding FvwmButtons or other
windows module FvwmAuto launched like this:
+ I Module FvwmAuto FvwmAutohide -menter enter_handler
But from reading manpage source code of this module I figured out that
it doesn't accept aliases, right?
So, I think
Hello,
I'm trying to find out how to have multiple windows sharing the same frame.
I'm playing with FvwmTabs but I also want to experiment with a simpler
implementation on my own. I wrote something like the following in the main
fvwm code.
Add tab: (client is the fw-wins.client from another
Hi David,
I'm trying to find out how to have multiple windows sharing the same frame.
I'm playing with FvwmTabs but I also want to experiment with a simpler
implementation on my own.
Simpler? H.
I wrote something like the following in the main
fvwm code.
Add tab: (client is the
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:53:08PM +0200, Frank Hart wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:22:44PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
Please add this line to your config file:
bugopts explainwindowplacement
That's a nice tip. Unfortunately, the output from a well behaving window
is identical to the
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 23:53 +0200, Frank Hart wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:22:44PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
Please add this line to your config file:
bugopts explainwindowplacement
That's a nice tip. Unfortunately, the output from a well behaving window
is identical to the
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 09:34:39AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
Offending window:
[FVWM][__explain_placement]: placed new window 0x1a04757 'gmpc - id3 info':
desk 0 (current desk)
current page
screen: current screen: 0 0 1280x1024 (current screen)
position 291 688, placed by fvwm
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 05:02:23PM -, 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. fvwm-gnome
represents everything that the idiot of a maintainer has done in seeing
FvwmGTK and
On 7/12/06, Eduardo Gargiulo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
looking at debian cache, I found a package called fvwm-gnome. After
install, it replace fvwm, but the documentation is the same for both
packages. The package description says:
Unlike fvwm, this has been compiled with GNOME support
On 7/12/06, Thomas Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 05:02:23PM -, 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
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 -, 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
Is there currently no way to have the TaskBar group similar windows?
--
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 04:31:24PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there currently no way to have the TaskBar group similar windows?
No, which is why one uses FvwmIconMan.
I am hoping at some point that FvwmTaskBar is removed in favour of using
FvwmIconMan with possibly FvwmButtons -- that's
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:06:23PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 05:02:23PM -, 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. fvwm-gnome
represents everything
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 09:00:03AM -0500, Dan Ost wrote:
Are the dimensions of the offending window larger than 989x336 ?
The windowsize is 649x370
If you use PlaceAgain on the offending window, does it get placed
properly?
The application might be lying to FVWM about the size of the window
30 matches
Mail list logo
