Subject: Status update

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:37:01 +0100

Things left to do before 2.2:
-----------------------------

Items marked with a '*' may be skipped if the reporters don't
cooperate.

1) the key/mouse binding problems (not all in Jitterbug)
*  [investigation in progress]

   --> Nobody is able to find any problem.

10) crash with xclock (bug #56)
*   [investigation stalled]

   --> I've done what I could to get a statement from the
       reporter so this will go to unreproducible when 2.2
       is built.

15) gradient menus lose their colours under obscure circumstances.
*   [investigation in progress]

   --> This too is a 'third party' dependency.

17) find out why FvwmPager crashes
    [in progress]

Fixed but not verified:
-----------------------

5) verify the 'growing windows' bugfix (tkbiff may still have
*  a problem)
   [pending] 

   --> Most likely a tkbiff bug.  Please Ric, verify this as
       soon as possible

6) verify the num-lock/key binding bugfix (bug #54)
*  [pending]

   --> After asking various people at least three times to
       verify the fix there is still no feedback :(

--------

I wrote emails until I got blisters on my fingertips but to
no avail. Nobody answers and we can't see any problems. So
1, 5, 6, 10 and 15 won't delay 2.2 any longer. I hope we get
the feedback on 5 before 2.2, but since it is most likely
still there and not a fvwm bug it is not all-important.
The only thing I want sorted out is 17 (new). I believe it
is a build problem.

2.1.8 will be built this weekend. Paul (PDS), I'd appreciate
if you would do it today (or Steve or Dan). Otherwise I'll
do it on Saturday.

Then it depends on if we have to implement new fixes. I think
we'll have one new beta per week until we have not changed any
code at all for a full week. This last beta will be repackaged
and called 2.2 (hey, that sounds good :) ) I hope sincerely 2.1.8
will be this last beta.

I'm not aware of any pending changes so I will proclaim the
final code freeze in a follow up.

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: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 15 Jan 1999 13:22:24 -0500

One issue:

Just about 15 minutes ago I got an announcement from Tom Tromey that
automake 1.4 has been officially released.

In addition to resolving the current situation where people have
different versions of automake (causing superfluous Makefile.in
changes), this version supposedly fixes the install-strip problem
currently documented in BUGS.

Are we interested in using this for 2.2, or is it too late?  If we want
it, I'll install it first _then_ make the 2.1.8 release.

Also, if we want it, should I change the .am files to _require_ 1.4, or
not?  I'm not planning on changing the .am files to use any new 1.4
features, so we don't have to change the minimum required version.

If we don't require it, people don't have to upgrade immediately.  On
the other hand, as we've seen, if people with commit access have a
different version of automake we can get "flip-flopping Makefile.in
version" problems in the source tree :(.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:41:28 +0100

> version" problems in the source tree :(.

Is there any risk that something goes wrong that we don't notice
before 2.2? I don't want a delay because of that since it has
not so much to offer us now. We could live with the install-strip
for 2.2 and two or three more versions of the .am files won't
hurt either.

Please make the decision you feel is right, Paul.

Bye

Dominik

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:47:14 +0100

> automake 1.4 has been officially released.

Where do I get it?

Dominik

---

From: Tomas Ogren <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:55:44 +0100

> > automake 1.4 has been officially released.

ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/automake/automake-1.4.tar.gz

They've actually made subdirs for programs now! *gosh*

/Tomas
-- 
Tomas Ögren, [email-masked], http://www.ing.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student of Computer Science at the University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {ing,acc}.umu.se
--
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: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 15 Jan 1999 14:12:52 -0500

%% Tomas Ogren <[email-masked]> writes:

  to> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/automake/automake-1.4.tar.gz

Is it there already?  If not I can provide a path to the Cygnus site
where Tom put it.

  to> They've actually made subdirs for programs now! *gosh*

Yeah, that happened last week.  Handy, I think; /pub/gnu was getting
kinda unwieldy :)

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:13:21 +0100

On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 02:12:52PM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> Is it there already?

Yup.

Dominik

---

From: Tomas Ogren <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:16:05 +0100

> Is it there already?  If not I can provide a path to the Cygnus site

It's there alright..

/Tomas

---

From: Richard Lister <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:02:02 -0500

On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:37:01 +0100
Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> 
> Fixed but not verified:

To clarify what I saw as the problem, tkbiff would grow horizontally
to just under the desktop width. FvwmIconMan would jump a few pixels
to the SE every time its window changed size (i.e. a new item was
added or removed). These two effects would always occur together.
Restarting tkbiff and fvwm would make the problem go away for a few
hours.

I've been running 2.1.7 and a 2.1.8 CVS from yesterday for about
3 days and have not seen any reoccurrence of the problem. So I'm
reasonably optimistic. I'll let you know immediately if I see the
problem again.

Ric

Richard J Lister, Georgetown Institute for Cognitive and Computational Sciences
Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA
Phone: +1 202-687 2878
Email: [email-masked] 
Web: http://www.giccs.georgetown.edu/~ric/
--
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, 16 Jan 1999 01:27:46 +0100

> reasonably optimistic. I'll let you know immediately if I see the

Thanks. Although I don't know what I fixed I think we can close the
bug report then finally.

Bye

Dominik

--
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:47:52 -0500 (EST)

On 15 Jan 1999, Paul D. Smith wrote:

> changes),

It resolves that problem??  Wow.

> this version supposedly fixes the install-strip problem

For me, that's reason enough to switch!  I move that we start using 1.4
now.

> version" problems in the source tree :(.

The flip-flopping isn't so much a problem *if* the person doing release
builds uses the latest automake/autoconf.

Nor will it be a problem if we REMOVE the auto*-generated files from
CVS...

--
Steve Robbins                              <[email-masked]>

Is there something wrong with this?
I don't see how there possibly could be:
The waterbed's on fire, 
but everything else is as it should be.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 16 Jan 1999 16:27:37 -0500

%% Steve Robbins <[email-masked]> writes:

  >> different versions of automake (causing superfluous Makefile.in

  sr> It resolves that problem??  Wow.

By this I mean, if we require everyone to use 1.4 then everyone will be
using the same version :)

  >> currently documented in BUGS.

  sr> For me, that's reason enough to switch!  I move that we start using 1.4
  sr> now.

I tried a make distcheck with 1.4 and it failed due to the
AM_PROG_INSTALL vs. AC_PROG_INSTALL error you mentioned a bit ago.  I
wasn't sure exactly how to fix it, so I didn't.

If you fix it (or tell me how) I'll make a 2.1.8 tonight with Chris's
FvwmWinList patch.

Or, I can easily go back to 1.3b, too.

---

From: Chris Rankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 20:22:05 -0500 (EST)

> Or, I can easily go back to 1.3b, too.

Is that wise? When I ran "make check" on 1.3b, it failed on test
"ansi3". The 1.4 tests all work.

Chris.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
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: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 16 Jan 1999 20:38:58 -0500

>> Or, I can easily go back to 1.3b, too.

  cr> Is that wise? When I ran "make check" on 1.3b, it failed on test
  cr> "ansi3". The 1.4 tests all work.

1.3b is the one I've been using ever since 2.1.0; it's worked fine for
me.

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:38:18 -0500 (EST)

> If you fix it (or tell me how) I'll make a 2.1.8 tonight with Chris's

OK, so first make sure configure.in has AC_PROG_INSTALL rather than
AM_PROG_INSTALL.  It should, since I think I've checked in versions after
making this change.  Second, nuke aclocal.m4, and run 'aclocal'.  The
issue is that if you have run aclocal in the past with AM_PROG_INSTALL in
configure.in, the macro definition is stuffed into aclocal.m4.  Rebuilding
with a newer aclocal will fix this.

There's a little bit of Elvis in everybody.
Except Michael J. Fox -- he's the anti-Elvis.

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:49:47 -0500 (EST)

> 1.3b is the one I've been using ever since 2.1.0; it's worked fine for

I've been using 1.3d for some time now.  And now one of my machines has
1.4 on it.  With so many automake & autoconf versions floating around, I
think we're asking for trouble by checking in derived files. 

Unless someone comes up with a more serious objection than "I don't feel
like installing the auto* packages", I think we should remove the derived
files next weekend. 

All CVS developers: grab a copy of autoconf and automake this week!

I am an anarchist.  
I am the antichrist.