Subject: Unofficial debian package for 2.5.8

From: Manoj Srivastava <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:48:01 -0600

Hi,
	[I am not subscribed to this list, so please CC me on any replies]

	Since the official debian developer has been very reluctant to
 package the 2.5 series, I have decided to package it, and make it
 comply to latest Debian policy. The packages are
 lintian clean, and can be found at:

deb http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/ packages/
deb-src http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/ packages/source/

       These packages were configured as follows (I see no reason not
 to allow rplay and xrender compatibility in fvwm). As you can see
 below, I have included as many of the features as I could.

       manoj

./configure --build i386-linux \
--prefix=/usr\
--sysconfdir=/etc/X11/fvwm\
--libexecdir=/usr/lib\
--mandir=/usr/share/man --with-stroke-library\
--enable-multibyte

FVWM Configuration:

  Version:     2.5.8

  Executables: /usr/bin
  Man pages:   /usr/share/man
  Modules:     /usr/lib/fvwm/2.5.8
  Data files:  /usr/share/fvwm
  Perl lib:    /usr/share/fvwm/perllib
  Locale msg:  /usr/share/locale  ar de fr sv_SE

  With Asian bi-direct. text support? yes
  With Gettext Native Lang Support?   yes (libc)
  With GTK+ required for FvwmGtk?     yes
  With GDK image support in FvwmGtk?  no: Failed on gdk-imlib, see config.log
  With GNOME libs support in FvwmGtk? no: Can't find working gnome-config
  With PNG image support?             yes
  With ReadLine sup. in FvwmConsole?  yes
  With RPlay support in FvwmEvent?    yes
  With Shaped window support?         yes
  With Shared memory for XImage?      yes
  With Session Management support?    yes
  With Mouse strokes (gestures)?      yes
  With Xinerama multi-head support?   yes
  With Xft anti-alias font support?   yes (version 2)
  With XPM image support?             yes
  With Xrender image support?         yes

-- 
Rather than a beep Or a rude error message, These words: "File not
found." The windows haikus -- --
Manoj Srivastava   <[email-masked]>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
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: Johan Svedberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:58:40 +0100

* Nov 11 09:50 Manoj Srivastava <[email-masked]>:

[...]

> Since the official debian developer has been very reluctant to package
> the 2.5 series, I have decided to package it, and make

This is great news, thanks for doing this Manoj!

[...]

-- 
Johan Svedberg, [email-masked], http://johan.svedberg.pp.se/

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:40:04 +0000

>  below, I have included as many of the features as I could.

You didn't include gdk-imlib. :)

In case you are not aware of it, we provide the deb package from fvwm.org
download page. See also my message on this list from 31 October about
automatical creation of a deb package from the sources.

> --enable-multibyte

This option was removed from 2.5.x.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Manoj Srivastava <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:06:20 -0600

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:40:04 +0000, Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]> said: 

>> comply to latest Debian policy. The packages are lintian clean, and
>> can be found at:
>>
>> deb http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/ packages/ deb-src
>> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/ packages/source/
>>
>> These packages were configured as follows (I see no reason not to
>> allow rplay and xrender compatibility in fvwm). As you can see

> You didn't include gdk-imlib. :)

	That shall be fixed in tonight's upload. I did not have time
 to update the gdk packages last night (my local mirror did not have
 the requisite packages).

> In case you are not aware of it, we provide the deb package from
> fvwm.org download page. See also my message on this list from 31
> October about automatical creation of a deb package from the
> sources.

	I am. Please look at the lintian warnings below, there are a
 couple of errors that would keep that package out of Debian proper,
 due to QA. I fixed up the packaging to bring it in line with latest
 policy. 

	Also, I could not find the .dsc and the source package,
 albeit my search on fvwm.org was somewhat cursory.

> This option was removed from 2.5.x.

	Thanks.

	manoj

__> lintian -vi ~/fvwm_2.5.8-2_i386.deb 
N: Setting up lab in /tmp/lintian-lab.29695 ...
N: Processing 1 packages...
N: ----
N: Processing binary package fvwm (version 2.5.8-2) ...
unpacked/usr/share/doc/fvwm/changelog.Debian.gz:	  8.8%
E: fvwm: manpage-has-bad-whatis-entry usr/share/man/man1/FvwmWindowMenu.1.gz
N:
N:   Each manual page should start with a `NAME' section, which lists the
N:   name and a brief description of the page. These sections are parsed by
N:   `mandb' and stored in a database for the use of `apropos' and
N:   `whatis', so they must be in a certain format. This manual page
N:   apparently uses the wrong format and cannot be parsed by `mandb'.
N:   
N:   For information on how `NAME' sections should be written and a list of
N:   some common mistakes, please see the lexgrog(8) manual page.
N:
E: fvwm: binary-without-manpage fvwm2
N:
N:   Each binary in /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /bin, /sbin, or /usr/games, must
N:   have a manual page.
N:   
N:   Note, that though the `man' program has the capability to check for
N:   several program names in the NAMES section, each of these programs
N:   must have its own manual page (a symbolic link to the appropriate
N:   manual page is sufficient) because other manual page viewers such as
N:   xman or tkman don't support this.
N:   
N:   Refer to Policy Manual, section 13.1 for details.
N:
W: fvwm: package-contains-upstream-install-documentation usr/share/doc/fvwm/INSTALL.gz
N:
N:   Binary packages do not need to contain the instructions for building
N:   and installing the package as this info is not needed by package
N:   users. If the info contained is important for configuration perhaps it
N:   could be summarized in README.Debian, otherwise an override may be
N:   added.
N:   
N:   Refer to Policy Manual, section 13.3 for details.
N:
W: fvwm: package-contains-upstream-install-documentation usr/share/doc/fvwm/INSTALL.fvwm.gz
E: fvwm: file-in-etc-not-marked-as-conffile /etc/menu-methods/fvwm
N:
N:   Files in /etc must be marked conffiles if they are included in a
N:   package. Otherwise they should be created by maintainer scripts.
N:   
N:   Refer to Policy Manual, section 11.7 for details.
N:
E: fvwm: no-copyright-file
N:
N:   Each binary package has to include a plain file
N:   /usr/share/doc/<pkg>/copyright
N:   
N:   Refer to Policy Manual, section 13.5 for details.
N:
N: Removing /tmp/lintian-lab.29695 ...

-- 
Is it weird in here, or is it just me? Steven Wright

---

From: Andrei Mitrofanow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:21:38 +0100

> N:   Refer to Policy Manual, section 13.1 for details.

_______________________________________________________________________________
> E: fvwm: no-copyright-file
_________________________________________________________________________

this will be fixed from me in the next time.

---

From: "Paul Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Nov 2003 16:06:55 -0500

>> deb-src http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/ packages/source/

  mg> You didn't include gdk-imlib. :)

  mg> In case you are not aware of it, we provide the deb package from
  mg> fvwm.org download page. See also my message on this list from 31
  mg> October about automatical creation of a deb package from the
  mg> sources.

It would be very cool if you guys put this together so that the packages
were available at Manoj's area so we can get them through APT directly
instead of downloading them and installing them with dpkg -i.

And the fvwm-themes stuff too!!

I guess I'm just spoiled by Debian... I think I need a tshirt with that
on it :).

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>   HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.

---

From: Manoj Srivastava <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:20:22 -0600

> You didn't include gdk-imlib. :)

	Hmm. There is a problem, at least on my build machine. I
 installed the following gdk-imlib1 packages on Sid, and tried again,
 to no  avail. I am going to try and build this using pbuilder, to get
 a more, well, reproducible build environment.

	manoj

Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name           Version        Description
+++-==============-==============-============================================
un  gdk-imlib      <none>         (no description available)
un  gdk-imlib-dev  <none>         (no description available)
un  gdk-imlib-deve <none>         (no description available)
un  gdk-imlib-nonf <none>         (no description available)
un  gdk-imlib-nonf <none>         (no description available)
ii  gdk-imlib1     1.9.14-14      imaging library for use with gtk (using libp
ii  gdk-imlib1-dev 1.9.14-14      Header files needed for Gdk-Imlib developmen
rc  gdk-imlib2     1.9.14-11      Gdk-Imlib is an imaging library for use with
-- 
In a medium in which a News Piece takes a minute and an "In-Depth"
Piece takes two minutes, the Simple will drive out the Complex.  --
Frank Mankiewicz
Manoj Srivastava   <[email-masked]>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
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: Manoj Srivastava <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:24:07 -0600

> It would be very cool if you guys put this together so that the
> packages were available at Manoj's area so we can get them through
> APT directly instead of downloading them and installing them with
> dpkg -i.

	I would be happy if people took my patches. Now that I am
 hooked on the 2.5.x branch, I guess I'll always keep a version in
 place on that site (modulo business trips and visiting India sometime
 this winter).

> And the fvwm-themes stuff too!!

	Well, that is the next step. Now that I seem to have a halfway
 decent fvwm setup, I'll try and see if I can package fvwm-themes
 (once I have a nightly cvs-build setup in place for fvwm).

> I guess I'm just spoiled by Debian... I think I need a tshirt with
> that on it :).

	We aim to please ;-)

	manoj

-- 
Do you think that illiterate people get the full effect of alphabet
soup?
Manoj Srivastava   <[email-masked]>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:34:49 +0000

On 13 Nov 2003 10:35:13 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
>   >> Are we still speaking of the examples? 
> 
>   mg> I am speaking about the patch of 1.2Mb that you apply.
> 
> Maybe a good way forward would be for someone to go through the 1.2M
> patch and give a concise bullet list of all the changes that it makes.
> 
> Then we can have a bullet-by-bullet discussion about whether each is
> appropriate or not, in the new FVWM.  It seems that the FVWM Debian
> package is suffering from some bitrot, where the Debian-specific parts
> haven't always been modified to reflect enhancements in the base
> package.

Probably doing it another way around is better, start from the clean deb
procedure we provide and suggest its improvements. I think the resulting
deb package is good without any additions as a reference fvwm package for
users of any deb-based distributions, a lot of work was done to polish it.
(Would be nice to actually test other than Debian distributions too.)
Bring your suggestions, of course, if any.

> As an example I agree with Mikhael that there shouldn't be a system-wide
> default fvwm config: Dan's excellent work to bring up a configurator for
> new FVWM users shouldn't be hidden by years-old crusty configuration
> files.

Let's not forget the Olivier's "Setup 95 Wizard" too. :)

> Let's get the list of changes, then we can all decide how to create the
> best possible package for both Debian users and FVWM developers.
> 
> 
> I've had a lot of good experiences with Manoj as the Debian maintainer
> of GNU make so I feel confident we can work together just as amicably
> for FVWM.  For DEBs, even moreso than with RPMs, I don't think it's a
> good idea to have two very different setups: it just doesn't make sense
> in the Debian world.  If we can get the "official" DEB setup, or very
> close to it, into the FVWM release tarball that would be most excellent.

It will be very hard to convince me that adding one more setup that is
outdated and was never blessed/supported by fvwm developers into the core
fvwm is a good idea. The problem is any configuration needs maintaining.

I have nothing against an add-on Debian-only package with this setup
included if some Debian people need it.

> Should we move this discussion to the fvwm-workers list?

Yes, my fault.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: "Paul Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Nov 2003 17:33:45 -0500

mg> Probably doing it another way around is better, start from the
  mg> clean deb procedure we provide and suggest its improvements.

I'm not suggesting we start with the old packaging and remove stuff we
don't need: I'm suggesting we look at the content of the old packaging
and anything we think we need, we implement in the new packaging.  That
could be done by porting the old stuff, or by writing it from scratch.

If we ignore the old package I worry that we'll miss something that was
added for a good reason, then re-learn it the hard way.  Why not take
advantage of the work that was done before, at least enough to
understand what the issues are?

  mg> I think the resulting deb package is good without any additions as
  mg> a reference fvwm package for users of any deb-based distributions,
  mg> a lot of work was done to polish it.  (Would be nice to actually
  mg> test other than Debian distributions too.)  Bring your
  mg> suggestions, of course, if any.

My concern, as I think with most Debian users, is that unlike a Red Hat
system Debian folks generally _DON'T_ install random packages.  Part of
that is a culture thing, since few projects create DEBs, but part of it
is a reaction to the way that lintian, etc. force packages to have some
degree of sanity, similarity, etc.

I'm not in any way saying that the DEBs fvwm creates by default don't do
that, I'm saying that a DEB that's maintained as part of Debian unstable
or experimental or even a developer area will get significantly more use
than a .deb file on the fvwm.org web site.

I'd like to see those two things merge insofar as that's possible.

  mg> Let's not forget the Olivier's "Setup 95 Wizard" too. :)

Indeed; sorry Olivier :).

  mg> It will be very hard to convince me that adding one more setup
  mg> that is outdated and was never blessed/supported by fvwm
  mg> developers into the core fvwm is a good idea. The problem is any
  mg> configuration needs maintaining.

Yes, that's why we need to have the conversation, to work this out.  One
potential goal might be to get the Debian folk to maintain the Debian
package right in the FVWM distribution itself.

This is, for example, what packages like nfs-utils are doing now: Chip
S. submits patches and builds DEBs more-or-less straight from the
distribution.

---

From: Stephan Beyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 20:57:35 +0100

Hi,

since FVWM 2.5.7 I also maintain an apt-get'able unofficial unstable 
.deb :) Yesterday I uploaded version 2.5.8.
For instructions and information on my package, see
http://noxa.de/~sbeyer/debian/ ...

I'd suggest a link either on the fvwm download page or on the
http://fvwm-themes.sf.net/deb/ page to alternate FVWM .deb
downloads / apt repositories, for example:
	- Alexander Kotelnikov's
	  http://people.debian.org/~sacha/debian
	- Manoj Srivastava's
	  http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/
	- and mine
	  http://noxa.de/~sbeyer/debian/

...so that Debian users can choose if they want an unofficial unstable
fvwm .deb or build it on their own :)

greets,
sbeyer

PS: I'm new to this list, hope the reply worked with the inserted
"In-Reply-To:" header line taken from the archive.
--
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]