On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:21:02PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > I thought a long time about this. The reason leading me to this > direction were: > > - 9menu if quite tiny. The binary of it is smaller than the > ruby bindings of ratpoison, and the binary make the largest part of > the package. The whole unpacked package, even when rounding all files > to block sizes, would fit within the changelog.Debian.gz of ratpoison. > > - There is no way to specify that 9menu should be installed when menu > is installed. > > If menu is installed, all halfly capable window managers offer to > start ratpoison with a simple click into the menu. I'd much prefer > to have a nice way back when someone accidentially clicks on > ratpoison, so that admins can install ratpoison for the power users > with a clear conscience. > > - Least I don't know how to calculate the window manager priority when > there is a menu but not always...
This is all good and well, but none of the reasons make ratpoison require the use of 9menu, which means that ratpoison should not specify a Depends: on 9menu. -- gram -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
