Subject: Re: obscure bugs?

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 01 Jan 1999 23:43:31 -0500

%% Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

  >> I can't say I agree with all these items being necessary for 2.2.
 
  dv> So, where don't you agree? We can talk about everything.

I've been away (and technically, still am...) so I've not been following
things closely.  I must say I was surprised to see code the magnitude of
Dominiks menustyle patches go in at this late date, but I don't have the
first idea what they do or what they fix (as I've said before, in many
ways my use of fvwm is quite basic), so I'm satisfied if you-all think
they were necessary.

  dv> Let me explain my motivation behind these:

  dv> 1) the key/mouse binding problems (not all in Jitterbug)

  dv> Really strange. I don't believe all these people were
  dv> fantasizing. I don't want 2.2 before it is clear what
  dv> caused these problems.

  dv> One of the top priorities for me.

We need a proper bug report, with someone willing to work with us.  IMHO
some or all of these have been suspicious and I'm not convinced they
weren't all due to configuration/installation/etc. errors.

  dv> 2) the XPM problems (probably in 'configure', bugs #31,
  dv>    #40 and perhaps others)

  dv> Probably the worst problem we have at the moment. There
  dv> have been at least four or five complaints about pixmap
  dv> problems.

I will put something into configure to print out the status of various
optional features like XPM support at the end so people will hopefully
notice if it's not there.

I will try to find a way to get the -R link option set on systems where
that's necessary.

And I will try to incorporate some code to test the XPM version to be
sure it's correct.

Beyond that, there's not much we can do.  People have to know enough to
delete the config.cache file, for example, or read it in the INSTALL
file.  It's not appropriate to remove it automatically every time, for
example: the cache file wouldn't be too useful in that case :)

  dv> 7) install-strip problem (bug #33)

  dv> I think this was an automake bug. I remember some comment
  dv> by Paul (PDS) about this (is that tight, Paul?) and the
  dv> error message from the report seems to confirm this too.

Tom told me he submitted a fix to the CVS tree for automake.  However,
we cannot use that version of automake until we start using the next
version of autoconf, which is also not released and only available
through CVS.  I'm not comfortable with this at all.

I'd much rather leave it as-is and either document it or just live with
it than move to less-tested versions of automake/autoconf.

  dv> I wonder how other autoconf'ed programs do this if they
  dv> have multiple directories where executables are built.
  dv> Perhaps we could create symbolic links tho the correct
  dv> install-sh in the distribution?

Most people don't run install-strip.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 07:08:37 +0100

> ways my use of fvwm is quite basic), so I'm satisfied if you-all think

The reason is syntax. There was only one chance to get the syntax straight.
If we'd put the previous syntax into a stable release we had begun regretting
this soon.

> weren't all due to configuration/installation/etc. errors.

Well, I don't know which of these are fvwm problems. And I do agree
the lack of people willing to cooperate is a problem too. I would
have ignored this until someone found a way to reproduce it, but
we had about five independent reports of binding problems. I can't
ignore this.

> And I will try to incorporate some code to test the XPM version to be

Great. That's what I was hoping for all the time. Thanks.

> it than move to less-tested versions of automake/autoconf.

OK, I'll not fight for this one. People who make install-strip probably
know how to do it manually. Could you write something about this in the
BUGS and/or INSTALL file?

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].