> From: Dominik Vogt <fvwm@fvwm.org> > Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:00:04 +0200
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 01:51:56PM +0200, Imre Vida wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 09:14:54AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > > > On 23 Aug 2002 23:32:02 +0200, Imre Vida wrote: > > > > > > > > This also suggests that the maintainers are aware of (at least some) > > > > problems on this "front". This is to put it very softly, as John did > > > > it earlier "a bit naughty" against all those "stupid users" like me. > > > > > > Well, the multibyte support is marked experimental in 2.4.x and disabled > > > by default. Sorry it caused you any problems. > > > > sorry, the criticism was not directed against you. > > I was just somewhat puzzled by what you said. > > To have an experimetal feature is fine, but to have it > > enabled in a "stable" distribution (Debian and RH) is not > > - especially when it is not documented for the user. > > But again this should be directed to a different forum. > > Let's put it this way: It's idiotic. I might be able to throw some light on it, at least for Red Hat's `error'. By coincidence, I was last night looking at the spec file for Red Hat's fvwm2.4.6, and also for fvwm2.2.4. I was amazed to see ``--enable-multi-byte'' in the 2.*2*.4 version -- I had thought the multi-byte option only appeared experimentally in 2.4. Then I saw a patch file that Red Hat had added to their 2.2.4 RPM, to support multi-byte in 2.2.4 (and possibly earlier versions too). This patch may have been contributed to or from the fvwm-developers at the time: e.g. perhaps it was an early version of what appeared in 2.4? Anyway, clearly Red Hat discarded the patch file in their 2.4 RPM, as I assume it would not have matched anymore. So Red Hat simply failed to switch *off* multi-byte support when it, in effect, *became* experimental -- perhaps a careless oversight, or perhaps an optimistic perspective, but not quite as looney as if they switched it *on* for the first time, like I had assumed. Maybe it's related to their apparent intentions of support for fvwm, i.e. taking their eye off an old ball before letting it drop? Speaking of such, the reason I was looking at these old specs was because I was building a Red Hat ready fvwm2.5.2 RPM which we are probably going to use here at Manchester CS. I know there are RPMS on SourceForge, but they're not actually Red Hat ready (i.e. literally plug and play on a standard RH7 system). So I started off from Red Hat's own 2.4.6 spec file. I will probably build a 2.5.3 one too. Is it worth me putting them on the web? > > Bye > > Dominik ^_^ ^_^ Best wishes, John Latham -- 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]