Subject: fvwm-1.24r GNOME Support Patch

From: Jay Painter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:16:54 -0800 (PST)

I'm working on a patch for fvwm-1.24r that supports the GNOME window
manager hints.  I've completed most of the work, but there's still some
cleanup to do and some intigration with the origional fvwm-1.24 sources.

It currently supports:
  * the GNOME pager
  * GNOME client list
  * proxying of root window mouse clicks for the file manager

I'm wondering how you would feel about releasing a fvwm-1.25 with GNOME
compliance?

Regards,
Jay Painter

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Painter -- [email-masked] -- [email-masked] -- [email-masked]
http://www.serv.net/~jpaint/

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
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: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:33:00 -0500

> I'm wondering how you would feel about releasing a fvwm-1.25 with GNOME

Fvwm 1.2x development stopped years ago.

Patches for 2.x might be accepted.

--
Dan Espen
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854                     Phone: (732) 699-5570
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
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: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Jan 1999 09:36:17 -0600

>>>>> "JP" == Jay Painter <[email-masked]> writes:

JP> I'm working on a patch for fvwm-1.24r that supports the GNOME window
JP> manager hints.

Please say it isn't so!  FVWM1 is dead, dead, dead.  The sources haven't
been touched in years.  I wouldn't be surprised if nobody here had ever
looked at the source.

JP> I'm wondering how you would feel about releasing a fvwm-1.25 with GNOME
JP> compliance?

With 2.2 this close to reality, I can't imagine it ever happening.

Of course, we really want this functionality in FVWM2, though it is
probably best to save it until after 2.2 is released.  We've just been
looking for someone who is willing to do the work (and trying to get any of
the GNOME folks to respond to some comments on the rather poor quality of
the documentation of the GNOME-specific hints).

Is there anyone here who remembers anything about FVWM1 and who might
comment on how difficult it might be to bring this work into the modern age
so that it's not wasted?

 - J<

---

From: Jay Painter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:43:03 -0800 (PST)

> been touched in years.  I wouldn't be surprised if nobody here had ever

Hey, I like fvwm-1!  I also GNU Autoconf'ed it so it doesn't use imake
anymore ;)  Anyways, it looks like I'll probably continue to do a little
development on it and check it into GNOME CVS as gnome-example-wm,
somthing to ship with gnome so users trying out gnome don't have to
download and compile a window manager until they decide they like it.
Is everyone okay with this?

> the documentation of the GNOME-specific hints).

I'm sure I can get basic support in very quickly if fvwm-2 is anything
like fvwm-1.  Almost all the changes are isolated in one gnome.c file, and
as a first swing at this we can stick to implimenting the gnome features
that are easy.  The documentation for the GNOME hints isn't the greatest;
I eneded up using it in conjunction with the E source code to figure it
out.

One issue with GNOME compliance is that it proxies root mouse clicks.
This means no WM controlled menus for the left&right buttons; however, I
think we can keep that configurable by having an option to bind those
mouse clicks to the gnome button proxy.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 12 Jan 1999 19:32:45 -0500

%% Jay Painter <[email-masked]> writes:

  jp> Anyways, it looks like I'll probably continue to do a little
  jp> development on it and check it into GNOME CVS as gnome-example-wm,
  jp> somthing to ship with gnome so users trying out gnome don't have
  jp> to download and compile a window manager until they decide they
  jp> like it.  Is everyone okay with this?

Well, you can do what you like, of course, but I personally don't like
it much.

The big problem is that fvwm1 and fvwm2 don't have compatible config
files, so it's a chore (even with the conversion script) to change from
1 to 2.

1 is _really_ obsolete, and we definitely aren't doing any more work on
it including features _or_ bugfixes.  I'd just hate to see something
that comes "standard" with GNOME be something so old and crusty, and at
the same time something with no easy upgrade path to something better.

My $0.02.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "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.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
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: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:02:17 -0500

> Is everyone okay with this?

You are free to do what you like, but I don't like it at all.

If you only "like" fvwm1, you will "love" fvwm2.

I wouldn't be surprised  to hear that your  gnome patches apply easily
to fvwm2.  Large  parts of fvwm have  changed from fvwm1 to fvwm2, but
some of the more basic stuff is intact.

I think you would be doing a real dis-service  by trying to perpetuate
fvwm1.

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Funk)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:02:29 +0100 (MET)

Hello!

> I think you would be doing a real dis-service  by trying to perpetuate

I disagree with Dan.  fvwm 1.24 source is much smaller/simpler than fvwm 2.x.  
If Jay got so far with his effort, I would like to see his results.  

Jay: Please publish your GNOME patches.  

Dan: I think you would be doing a real dis-service by disdaining peoples
     effort to contribute code to the open source software pool.

just my 2 cents.

Regards, Peter
-- 
Peter Funk, Oldenburger Str.86, 27777 Ganderkesee, Tel:+49 4222 9502 70, Fax:-60

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:59:26 +0100

> If Jay got so far with his effort, I would like to see his results.  

Nobody told Jay to go away and come back when he has fvwm2 patches.
I don't know what you are interpreting into this.

>      effort to contribute code to the open source software pool.

Well, of course anybody can do with the sources whatever the
copyrights allow. But don't expect us to support that. fvwm1
development is dead and we have enough to do with fvwm2 without
beginning to maintain several versions. Claiming Dan would
'disdain people' is rather unfair. If you would like to take
the effort of maintaining further fvwm1 development, go ahead and
do it, but don't as *us* to do the work (see above). All Dan and
the others did was asking to do the effort for fvwm2 rather than
the obsolete fvwm1. I don't see why this should discourage Jay.
If facing reality does discourage him that is sad, byt life is
not always fair.

(Sorry Jay, no offense or insults meant in your direction, even
 if what I write may sound like it).

Bye

Dominik

-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
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: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:18:39 -0500

Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:
> > I disagree with Dan.  fvwm 1.24 source is much smaller/simpler than fvwm 2x.

  Dominik, thanks  for defending me.  I carefully  choose  my words to
motivate  Jay to  redirect his  efforts to fvwm2.   Since I apparently
succeeded, I'm happy  with the result.  I think  the large majority of
fvwm users will agree.

  Maybe the last sentence wasn't necessary, we will never know.

  On the issue of whether to develop fvwm1 over fvwm2 because fvwm1 is
smaller/simpler...Everyone  is free to do  what they like, but I still
don't like it.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:46:54 +0100

> smaller/simpler...Everyone  is free to do  what they like, but I still

And you are free to think and say anything. Apart from this my
opinion is similar. The only thing one could criticise is that
the first reply you made to Jay was a bit unfriendly, but hell,
comparing with what is going on on the web this was still very
civilised. And probably nobody is free of guilt on this list
(or any other). It's unbearable for me to see this unjustified
criticism be loaded onto someone who tries to be calm and
reasonable all the time.

Bye

Dominik

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 14 Jan 1999 10:48:35 -0500

%% [email-masked] (Peter Funk) writes:

  pf> I disagree with Dan.  fvwm 1.24 source is much smaller/simpler
  pf> than fvwm 2.x.  If Jay got so far with his effort, I would like to
  pf> see his results.

  pf> Jay: Please publish your GNOME patches.  

  pf> Dan: I think you would be doing a real dis-service by disdaining peoples
  pf>      effort to contribute code to the open source software pool.

I think you misunderstand: no one is disdaining anything.  The problem
is, to whom would Jay contribute his code?  There is _no_ one.  No one
maintains 1.x.  No one fixes bugs.  No one makes new versions.  No one
is tracking the source.

The thing we were concerned with wasn't so much that Jay is modifying
fvwm1 code, but that he said he'd include that with Gnome.  I worry
about this because:

 a) No one is fixing or maintaing fvwm 1.x; the bugs there will never be
    cleaned up (unless some other group takes over that version).

 b) There is no comprehensive upgrade path from fvwm 1.x to fvwm 2.x, so
    if people start with 1.x and want more (and, after all, people
    running Gnome will almost certainly want fancier WM features--people
    looking for a trivial WM will likely not want to bother with Gnome
    either) they have a hard row to hoe.

 c) Fvwm 1 is still "fvwm", and the more widely distributed it is the
    more questions, requests, bug reports, etc. etc. we will receive on
    these lists regarding it--and hardly anyone here remembers anything
    about fvwm 1.x, or is interested in dealing with it.

Secondary to all that is the fact that effort is going into what is
essentially a dead-end code path--it's like people creating Gnome
patches to Emacs 18.  Yes, Emacs 18 was smaller and simpler, but still...

Of course anyone is free to do what they want, but Jay _did_ ask our
opinion, so we provided it :)

---

From: Jay Painter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:19:15 -0800 (PST)

I just want to say I have no problems with what anyone has said on this
list.  I can understand developers not wanting old versions of stuff
distributed after they've put so much effort into it.  That said, I think
I've figured out what I'm going to do.  I'll continue to develop the patch
for fvwm-2.2, and will continue to back-port to the fvwm-1 source.  I've
also been ripping more and more stuff out of the fvwm-1 source tree
(modules, menus (since GNOME handles those), etc...).  IF this is ever
included with gnome, it will be called gnome-demo-wm, and prvided just so
people can try out GNOME with a tree installed to /usr/gnome.  This allows
people who don't like it to nuke it with a single rm -rf, those who do
like it will probably install rpms, debs, etc + a decent wm.  The GNOME
team doesn't want a single window wmanager to be the "GNOME" window
manager.

The other issue here is that I have to patch whatever WM source that
RedHat ships.  I think that's fvwm2 or the fvwm95.  I'm going to figure
that out today.

Regards,
Jay Painter

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 14 Jan 1999 22:54:47 -0500

jp>  I'll continue to develop the patch for fvwm-2.2,

Yay!

  jp> and will continue to back-port to the fvwm-1 source.  I've also
  jp> been ripping more and more stuff out of the fvwm-1 source tree
  jp> (modules, menus (since GNOME handles those), etc...).  IF this is
  jp> ever included with gnome, it will be called gnome-demo-wm, and
  jp> prvided just so people can try out GNOME with a tree installed to
  jp> /usr/gnome.  This allows people who don't like it to nuke it with
  jp> a single rm -rf, those who do like it will probably install rpms,
  jp> debs, etc + a decent wm.  The GNOME team doesn't want a single
  jp> window wmanager to be the "GNOME" window manager.

That sounds excellent to me.  Thanks!

  jp> The other issue here is that I have to patch whatever WM source that
  jp> RedHat ships.  I think that's fvwm2 or the fvwm95.  I'm going to figure
  jp> that out today.

Last I heard they shipped both fvwm2 and fvwm95, and their fvwm2 is
based on 2.0.46, I think, with many changes (Steve just merged a bunch
of their cleanups with our codebase this week).

I hope that once 2.2 is official it will be widely and quickly adopted.

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:37:36 -0500 (EST)

> of their cleanups with our codebase this week).

Uh, nope, not me.  I think Dominik did some of that, though. 

--
Steve Robbins                              <[email-masked]>

I'd rather have one of your minutes
than a year with all the hours in it.