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 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. > > FvwmButtons works nice, but I haven't found any icons from fvwm2 useful. > Too old. However, each program like firefox, gimp, gvim has it's own > icon in various sizes. These look nice. > > Work on fvwm3 is active and users input is very welcome from upstream. > Quite a few changes in plan have been from users input on the mailing > list. > > From another thread on misc@ or ports@, base fvwm is stuck due to > licensing issues and would require a tremendous effort to port the > pieces in that meet the base requirements. That's OK. It's really just a > quickie method to have X from install. > > IMHO, this is a good update. > Perhaps upstream could re-license fvwm2? Probably not, but would be > nice for us. I had the same thought but from my (limited) understanding of relicensing code this is not likely to happen. As I understand it every contributer would have to agree. > > Also, could we come up with a nicer default config for base that works > for base and fvwm2 port at the same time? The fonts are too small and > the setup for the windows is very clunky. I have bad eyesight and > 1024x768 is long gone (mostly). A very simple FvwmButtons would be cool > too for an example, but not necessary. That would be nice, but the config format between our base version (2.2.5 IIRC) and >=2.6 is incompatible in a lot of places. I think there was even another syntax change in between with 2.4. Some very minimal config would probably work since fvwm seems to try hard to handle legacy syntax, but I doubt this would make much sense. > > I know a lot of people are using fvwm2. I would love to have some configs > contributed and perhaps make an fvwm2-configs port? > I really moved forward when someone submitted their config on the > mailing list a while back. > > Anyway, thanks for the work! > > Chris Bennett > > Also "ping" for the port. Cheers, Michael
