Re: Hard-to-detect ``old binaries hanging around'' problem
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > On 18 Aug 2002 10:19:54 +0200, Ulrich Fahrenberg wrote: > > [a lot of blab on symlinks pointing the wrong way and on old fvwm2-binaries getting started when they shouldn't] > This is strange. I can't reproduce this behaviour with any shell. Well I can't either... > Relative symlinks should not be searched in $PATH, but in ./ only. > I would suspect a problem with your setup otherwhere. Yes of course, sorry for the trouble. I was messing around with my .xinitrc and .xsession etc just a bit too much, so I got lost. Now my setup is exactly as I was describing (with the ``old'' symlinks and /usr/X11R6/fvwm2 existing), and I get 2.4.8 running... Again, sorry. uli -- Ulrich Fahrenberg -- http://www.math.auc.dk/~uli -- Visit the official FVWM web page at http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fvwm 2.4.9, FvwmPager broken
Hi folks! I installed Fvwm 2.4.9 on my Linux box, and it looks like some changes between 2.4.8 and 2.4.9 broke the FvwmPager module somehow. (It's not system specific, happens on any system.) The "BalloonBack" option has no effect. The small balloon windows seem to always use the background color of the FvwmPager itself (or maybe they are transparent, hard to say). However, whatever is specified with "BalloonBack", it's simply ignored. If I use the FvwmPager binary from Fvwm 2.4.8, it works fine. According to the "NEWS" file, the changes to FvwmPager were: * A number of drawing fixes in FvwmPager. Looks like an unwanted side effect to the Balloon feature. Greetings, Andreas -- Visit the official FVWM web page at http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hard-to-detect ``old binaries hanging around'' problem
On 18 Aug 2002 10:19:54 +0200, Ulrich Fahrenberg wrote: > > I recently, finally, pulled myself together to upgrade from 2.2.2 to > 2.4.8, and I am pretty impressed about an apparent enhancement in > speed I really didn't suspect: I expected 2.4.8 to be slightly slower > actually, since it's more complex. Good work... > > OK, here's the deal: make install creates a symbolic link fvwm -> > fvwm2 in BINDIR, which in my case is /pack/fvwm/bin, with a symbolic > link from /usr/local/bin. There is also a file /usr/X11R6/bin/fvwm2, > the old fvwm-2.2.2. In my PATH, /usr/local/bin comes way before > /usr/X11R6/bin. > > The last line of my .xinitrc says ``exec /usr/local/bin/fvwm'', which > as I said is a link to /pack/fvwm/bin/fvwm, which in turn is a link to > fvwm2. This last link is the problem, since apparently .xinitrc > ignores everything about my PATH and finds this fvwm2 in > /usr/X11R6/bin, instead of /pack/fvwm/bin. I.e. my old fvwm-2.2.2 gets > started. > > It took me a couple of days to find out what happened, and of course > the problem was solved easily by moving /usr/X11R6/bin/fvwm2 to a safe > and unaccessible place... But the problem could've been avoided from > the beginning by creating links with absolute paths instead of > relative paths during install: > > Before: > $BINDIR/fvwm-> fvwm2 > After: > $BINDIR/fvwm-> $BINDIR/fvwm2 This is strange. I can't reproduce this behaviour with any shell. Relative symlinks should not be searched in $PATH, but in ./ only. I would suspect a problem with your setup otherwhere. If the original symlink does not work, does the following work? $bindir/fvwm-> ./fvwm2 Can you make it reproducible using "ln -s date something" commands? Regards, Mikhael. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hard-to-detect ``old binaries hanging around'' problem
Hello list, I recently, finally, pulled myself together to upgrade from 2.2.2 to 2.4.8, and I am pretty impressed about an apparent enhancement in speed I really didn't suspect: I expected 2.4.8 to be slightly slower actually, since it's more complex. Good work... OK, here's the deal: make install creates a symbolic link fvwm -> fvwm2 in BINDIR, which in my case is /pack/fvwm/bin, with a symbolic link from /usr/local/bin. There is also a file /usr/X11R6/bin/fvwm2, the old fvwm-2.2.2. In my PATH, /usr/local/bin comes way before /usr/X11R6/bin. The last line of my .xinitrc says ``exec /usr/local/bin/fvwm'', which as I said is a link to /pack/fvwm/bin/fvwm, which in turn is a link to fvwm2. This last link is the problem, since apparently .xinitrc ignores everything about my PATH and finds this fvwm2 in /usr/X11R6/bin, instead of /pack/fvwm/bin. I.e. my old fvwm-2.2.2 gets started. It took me a couple of days to find out what happened, and of course the problem was solved easily by moving /usr/X11R6/bin/fvwm2 to a safe and unaccessible place... But the problem could've been avoided from the beginning by creating links with absolute paths instead of relative paths during install: Before: $BINDIR/fvwm-> fvwm2 After: $BINDIR/fvwm-> $BINDIR/fvwm2 (and likewise with fvwm-root, btw.) I guess a little change to Makefile.am or similar could solve this, but I know nothing about autoconf, so I can't submit a patch. Regards, uli -- Ulrich Fahrenberg -- http://www.math.auc.dk/~uli -- Visit the official FVWM web page at http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]