Subject: utils not being distributed?

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:02:17 +0100

Is there a specific reason why almost nothing in the utils
directory is being installed or even distributed anymore?
Specifically, I see no reason to exclude

  build_dev.sh
  configure_dev.sh
  rebuild_dev.sh

form the distribution (not sure if they ever were in there).  And
the man page references the scripts

  fvwm_make_browse_menu.sh
  fvwm_make_directory_menu.sh

as an example for dynamic menu actions (which was the only reason
they were written - not the functionality they provide).  They
should both be distributed and installed, regardless of any
feelings whether shell or perl scripts are the "right thing".

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:30:59 +0000

> directory is being installed or even distributed anymore?

Some time ago I divided it to 2 directories, installed and uninstalled.
Only scripts in bin/ are installed and they all have consistent names.

> Specifically, I see no reason to exclude

I think you simply forgot to add them to DIST when added these scripts.
I never felt a need to include them, because they are mostly for cvs
users anyway.

> feelings whether shell or perl scripts are the "right thing".

The right thing here is to include them into distribution since they are
referenced from the man page. But I don't think anything that is currently
in utils/ should be installed, if you feel differently, move it to bin/.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:56:54 +0000

On 07 Nov 2002 12:30:59 +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > And the man page references the scripts
> > 
> >   fvwm_make_browse_menu.sh

Actually, if the only reason is to give an example as you correctly
pointed, they should not be installed to /usr/bin (or similar $bindir).
1) They may be be distributed and a link in the man page to
ftp://ftp.fvwm.org/pub/fvwm/devel/sources/utils/ may be given.
2) Or they may be installed to $docdir (I hope to add it later anyway)
together with README, INSTALL.fvwm etc.. Currently this may be $datadir.

If any of this is a good solution to you, they should not be in bin/,
but in utils/.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:04:59 +0100

> If any of this is a good solution to you, they should not be in bin/,

Theoretically yes, but they should still be installed for
backward compatibility.  People may rely on the being installed.
(But I'm not sure wheter they were installed in previous
versions).

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:27:32 +0000

> (But I'm not sure wheter they were installed in previous

I don't think they were ever installed, maybe during several days between
2.3.1 and 2.3.2:

Sun May  9 02:43:02 1999  Steve Robbins  <[email-masked]>

	* utils/Makefile.am: don't install fvwm_make_browse_menu.sh until
	we have some consensus on _where_ to put it.

They are not distributed since 2.3.7, I think.

As for me, I prefer simply to give an url. Run for example:

  fvwm-perllib man tutorial

There is a link to test modules. they are not even distributed,
although it is pretty difficult to learn perllib without them.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:44:42 +0100

> They are not distributed since 2.3.7, I think.

I must have missed it back then.  Personally, I see no problem
installing them in bindir.

> although it is pretty difficult to learn perllib without them.

I am not sure this is a wise decision.  Not everyone has net
internet access.  As they seem to serve documentation purposes
only, they should be installed somewhere in docdir.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:13:44 +0000

> installing them in bindir.

I see a serious problem in doing this. It is one thing to give an example
of creating user's menus and another to suggest a user to use these
scripts and rely on them later. Do you want quantity or quality?
Maybe we should in addition install into everyone's /usr/bin a C version
and an awk version that do opendir and print all files, just to show that
users may do it in these languages too?

No, we need to support one very configurable script, so most of the users
would just use it and not think about recreating such script themselves.
Let's do what we agreed to, distribute and possible install to docdir.

> only, they should be installed somewhere in docdir.

Maybe later I will see good reasons to distribute these files. Nowadays
every programmer has an internet, at least a web.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:25:12 +0100

> every programmer has an internet, at least a web.

Well, I think we will never agree on this.  My foremost goal is
portability.  I just can't make myself to see "internet access"
and perl as being available everywhere all the time.  People are
struggling with routing, dial in problems and dead links every
day.

If you think it bloats the tarball and the installation we can
make another cvs module "fvwm-docs" that contains the supporting
documentation.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 05:13:13 +0000

> make another cvs module "fvwm-docs" that contains the supporting

My point is very clear. If you think fvwm-menu-directory is not portable,
you may rewrite it using sh or C. You may even use the same man page
as available now. But I don't think installing anything else into bindir
that is much less configurable and without documentation is a good thing.
I wrote some rules that I would like we follow for files installed into
every user's /usr/bin (or similar). These scripts fail on all rules.

For me perl in 2002 is a standard unix tool just like awk was in 1990.
I don't remember any report saying a user can't use fvwm-menu-* scripts
or even fvwm-themes because they don't have perl. So this is a non issue.

The programming language is not important for me as long as the mainainer
agrees to maintain its script for a long time (that is I am ready to).
The functionality and configurability is what is important to me.

Regards,
Mikhael.