Subject: Re: Next beta?

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:42:12 +0100

On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 08:47:39PM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 05:21:31PM -0500, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> > Now that the problem with xpm configuration has been resolved (or at
> > least understood), should I spin 2.1.11?  Or wasn't that the xpm problem
> > you were thinking of, Dominik?
> > 
> 
> Before we roll, I think I lost track.
> I know there was a problem report on FvwmWinList hanging the X server and I just noticed I can reproduce this with the current CVS source (as of friday 1/29).  I see it on the standard solaris Xsun server for 2.6 and 2.5.1

I thought this was resolved :( Could you look into it a bit?

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://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: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 08:20:43 -0500

Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:
> > I know there was a problem report on FvwmWinList hanging the X server and I
>  just noticed I can reproduce this with the current CVS source (as of friday 
> 1/29).  I see it on the standard solaris Xsun server for 2.6 and 2.5.1
> 

When I reported a FvwmWinList hang, it turned out to be a Recapture and
FvwmAnimate LockOnSend problem.

--
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://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: Brad Giaccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:29:47 -0500

> FvwmAnimate LockOnSend problem.

I just spent the last few hours putting in debug statements and it seems the problem was with the and xpm call, upon checking it was a problem with the xpm library, we may want to make a note to not compile fvwm against libxpm that is built with -debug.

Brad
Sorry for the delay I just didn't want us to have another module problem that was going to force a rerelease.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 01 Feb 1999 09:39:34 -0500

I have a 2.1.11 spun and ready to go, but it seems like people are still
picking at the DGradient problem.  Shall I wait a bit and see if
anything comes of it today?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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://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: 01 Feb 1999 09:38:42 -0500

%% Brad Giaccio <[email-masked]> writes:

  bg> I just spent the last few hours putting in debug statements and it
  bg> seems the problem was with the and xpm call, upon checking it was
  bg> a problem with the xpm library, we may want to make a note to not
  bg> compile fvwm against libxpm that is built with -debug.

Can you give a few more details?  Why should compiling with debugging on
cause a problem like this?

---

From: Brad Giaccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:01:32 -0500

> cause a problem like this?

It seems that when 3.4.11 of libxpm is built with -DDEBUG it compile in a debug version of free that does a sleep 60, and then continues on.  Which gives the appearnce of a X server hang since the Server was grabbed when the free was called.  So I rebuilt the library without this function and everything worked as expected.
I suppose the real question is why anyone wouldn't want to sleep inside of a call to free but that is a question for a different list.

Brad
 
-- 
--- There are two kinds of knowledge, you either know the answer or
			you know where to find it
		      -Kane, Johnson, and anonymous
--
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: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:26:53 +0100

> anything comes of it today?

Yes, let's discuss this one first. Paul (PDS), could you write
a FAQ question/answer that summarizes all these problems that
may show up with XPM? It seems to be a rich source of complaints
so I'd like to have some hints in the FAQ even if it's not
fvwm's fault.

Bye

Dominik

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 01 Feb 1999 12:20:41 -0500

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

  dv> Yes, let's discuss this one first. Paul (PDS), could you write a
  dv> FAQ question/answer that summarizes all these problems that may
  dv> show up with XPM? It seems to be a rich source of complaints so
  dv> I'd like to have some hints in the FAQ even if it's not fvwm's
  dv> fault.

How about I put something in the INSTALL.fvwm file, with a pointer to it
in the FAQ?  I think build/install issues are better addressed there in
the (vain?) hope people read that file before installing.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 01 Feb 1999 12:48:07 -0500

Actually, I already added some text there--I forgot :)

I added a new note to the top warning about config.cache.

The text there now dealing with shared libs is somewhat generic (that
is, it doesn't mentione xpm very explicitly) but accurate.

I'll try to come up with some XPM-specific notes.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 01 Feb 1999 13:03:30 -0500

PS. I'd appreciate it if others would take a look at INSTALL.fvwm and
    provide any comments...

---

From: Tim Phipps <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 10:30:12 +0000

> PS. I'd appreciate it if others would take a look at INSTALL.fvwm and

Looks very good.  It isn't mentioned in the README though.

Cheers,
Tim.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 02 Feb 1999 09:38:31 -0500

%% Tim Phipps <[email-masked]> writes:

  >> PS. I'd appreciate it if others would take a look at INSTALL.fvwm and

  tp> Looks very good.  It isn't mentioned in the README though.

OK, I'll add it there, as well as the FAQ.

So, I saw the gradient fix go in... is 2.1.11 ready to be spun?

---

From: Tim Phipps <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:44:28 +0000

> So, I saw the gradient fix go in... is 2.1.11 ready to be spun?

I think so, three people have confirmed the 45degree gradients work
better (including me).

Cheers,
Tim.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 16:05:03 +0100

> I think so, three people have confirmed the 45degree gradients work

So, then let's make 2.1.11 now.

Bye

Dominik