Hi Chris,
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 02:28:58PM -0600, Chris Bennett wrote:
> Yes, I would like to see fvwm3 get ported.
Absolutely. I guess I could look into that next; adding pledge() to fvwm2
is probably a questionable action anyway.
> fvwm configs are extremely confusing. The examples on the
Yes, I would like to see fvwm3 get ported.
fvwm configs are extremely confusing. The examples on the various
websites don't work for me, except some pieces.
I setup 20 desktops (if that's the right word for fvwm).
Added a script to open 8 xterms for 2 for each server and 2 for local
use.
Hello Stuart,
thanks for the feedback.
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:24:02PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > [...]
>
> that would probably be better done as x11/fvwm3
Right, that was my thought as well.
>
> > I would also like to add pledge() to the most common modules, but I
> > assume
On 2020/12/03 15:45, Michael wrote:
> Hello ports,
>
> first of all I initially overlooked that there was already an attempt to
> bring fvwm to 2.6.9 [0] in April. The 2.6.7 port update was done
> independent of that and since 2.6.7 is still marked as the "stable"
> version [1] I would prefer
Hello ports,
first of all I initially overlooked that there was already an attempt to
bring fvwm to 2.6.9 [0] in April. The 2.6.7 port update was done
independent of that and since 2.6.7 is still marked as the "stable"
version [1] I would prefer that version for now. There is also another,
