Subject: Promoting extras

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:40:42 -0500 (EST)

Hello,

The "extras"  directory was, historically, a place to dump modules that
didn't configure or build with ease.  The extras now all -- in principle
-- configure and build with ease.  Now that we're back in "big change" 
mode, I'd like to propose erasing the distinction between TRUE modules and
SECOND-CLASS "extra" modules. 

In other words: let's change the "extras" into "modules", and get rid of
the --enable-extras configure switch.

During the reorganisation, we might also drop old and obsolete code.  My
proposal for promoting or droping the extras is as follows:

* Promote the following to modules: FvwmCommand, FvwmConsole, FvwmDebug,
  FvwmScript, and FvwmTaskBar.

* Drop FvwmConfig because the author's documentation says it is
  "braindead" and he "discourages its use".

* Drop FvwmGoodStuff: obsoleted by FvwmButtons.

* Drop FvwmPipe: similar functionality is obtained using FvwmCommand.

* Possibly drop FvwmWharf: the README included suggests it is not at all
  stable, and it hasn't been maintained for a while.  I lean towards
  dropping it.

---

From: Patrick Rogan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:18:52 -0500

I use FvwmWharf, and it's completely stable.  

~p@
--
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: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:12:01 -0500

>   FvwmScript, and FvwmTaskBar.

	I use FvwmCommand and FvwmConsole constantly, and would certainly vote
for their promotion. The other three I don't really use, and don't have
an opinion on them.

> * Drop FvwmGoodStuff: obsoleted by FvwmButtons.

	I'll second these two.

> * Drop FvwmPipe: similar functionality is obtained using FvwmCommand.

	I'll defer to others on this one, since I don't use it.

>   stable, and it hasn't been maintained for a while.  I lean towards

	If the README statement is indeed accurate, that's a persuasive
argument for dropping it. Does anyone actually use this? And is
AfterStep officially a dead horse?

- Bob

---

From: Patrick Rogan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:49:29 -0500

>> is AfterStep officially a dead horse?

Afterstep isn't dead, they just released v.1.6.

The FvwmWharf is the same version as the Wharf from AS 1.0, and it is
STABLE.  Remember this is from the old days where they actually _fixed_
bugs over there.

There is a new version of the Wharf distributed with AfterStep 1.4+, but
the last time i looked at that, it didn't work on my older linux
system.  The only new enhancement was the ability to nest buttonbars as
deep as you wanted.

FvwmButtons has to include the following features to completely
supersede the Wharf:

1) Be able to layer several xpms together on one button. 
  
   I may indicate that a button opens another buttonbar of computers 
   to telnet to by overlapping a monitor, networkcable, and arrow xpm, 
   then reuse the same monitor xpm on each of the telnet buttons.  
   The Warf's Icon parameter can take a comma separated list of icons.

2) Have some sort of "hide" feature where middle clicking on the main
buttonbar shrinks it down to just one button in the nearest corner of
the screen.  

    This differs from current functionality because the one button 
    displayed still performs the same function as it did before. 
    This could be tricky when the buttons can be different sizes as
    they can be in fvwmbuttons.

These are the two reasons I still use the Wharf, they are very useful
features.  FvwmButtons has all the other Wharf functionality and then
some, which is nice.

~p@

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 00:07:28 -0500 (EST)

> I use FvwmWharf, and it's completely stable.  

OK, that's good news.  I don't use it, and was just going by the README.

I'm happy to keep anything that is useful.

---

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 00:17:56 -0500

Patrick <[email-masked]> Rogan wrote:
> supersede the Wharf....

	Then I think we should keep it.

	I'm fairly ambivalent about the issue of getting rid of the extras
directory. I really don't see it as a problem, and certain modules taken
from other WM's would seem to be logical candidates for placing there -
like the Wharf and the TaskBar.

	I do think FvwmCommand and FvwmConsole should be promoted, however.

- Bob