On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 03:49:09PM -0600, Jaimos Skriletz wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:18:34PM +0100, John Latham wrote: > > > Both FvwmComand and FvwmConsole are used a lot, so the goal is to replace= > > > them with a more verstile tool. They won't be removed until this tool is= > > > functional, been tested in many situations and people have had plenty of= > > > time to change their configs. > > > > As I thought, thanks. > > > > One thing to point out though, for FvwmCommand it's not just configs that > > would be affected, but *software* built to run on fvwm. There may be an > > argument for providing a compat script, called FvwmCommand, to use the new > > module, when the old one is deleted. But I expect you would in any case have > > thought of that when the time comes! ;-) > > > > Yes, ensuring FVWM doesn't break other software should be a consideration. > But in this case it may only need to have FvwmCommand as a wrapper so it > can be used in shellscipts (etc) in the same way. The difference is it > won't be a Module running ontop of FVWM, it will just be a wrapper that > sends the command to the socket.
But it *will* be a module. Grr... -- Thomas Adam
