On 13 Nov 2003 01:37:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:41:46 +0000, Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On 11 Nov 2003 16:24:07 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> > >> I would be happy if people took my patches. > > > You are welcome to send patches that improve the deb package we > > provide. However if you speak about hooks and other ancient things, > > I see them as a clear deterioration. This will not be applied. The > > configuration in your patch are so ancient (from 5-7 years ago?) > > that it makes no sence to start to fix it. It should be dropped. We > > already provide 2 sets of configurations for a user without any > > fvwm2rc. Maintaining more configurations that are also distribution > > specific is meaningless. > > I am not wedded to the configuration examples. If that is your > sole objection, then it is easl=ily fixed. > > > We also don't add any distribution specific legacy things to our > > rpms. The binary packages from developers are clean and include > > only the things installed on a regular "make install". With addition > > of all mandatory stuff to pass the package requirements and minor > > usability things. > > Are we still speaking of the examples?
I am speaking about the patch of 1.2Mb that you apply. It would be acceptable if you apply a patch of 500b, but at this point you just package something else, not what we release. > I note that the packages provided do not integrate well into > Debian's menu system, nor do they integrate with the alternatives > system; Try the latest cvs, I think this is all handled at the needed minimum. > and, off hand, I do not see a system wide default fvwmrc. fvwm is best to be run without any system wide fvwmrc, especially the one written 5-7 years ago. The users then gets a menu and a choice to setup 2 configurations we maintain. There is also the third choice, fvwm-themes. > Are these > the legacy things you refer to? If so, I am afraid that the packages > provided by Debian must remain diverged; some of these are required by > the need to present an consistent integration of window managers into > Debian. To do it propertly, I would package fvwm-legacy that could be installed by the users who need it on top of the clean deb (most of the users do not need this additional package). > I am not the official maintainer of FVWM in Debian, but I'll > try and see if I can get him to cede the apckage to me, when I'll > have greater control over the default configuration. I don't really worry about any specific distribution and their internal politics, the only thing I worry is to get much less distribution specific questions/problems on this list. Regards, Mikhael. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
