Subject: GNOME patch needed now

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:48:13 +0100

Jay,

we need that GNOME patch in the CVS tree real soon. I tried to
apply this, but lots of stuff has changed in CVS already and I
have no hope of merging that myself. Could you please make an
updated patch soon? Please put your changes in '#ifdef GNOME'.
The session and layer support from the version on your web
page is already in, so these shouldn't be ifdef'd.

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.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: Jay Painter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:15:32 -0800 (PST)

I'll get the #ifdefs in tonight for the GNOME patch and intigrate it into
the current HEAD of the CVS tree.

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

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:50:01 +0100

> the current HEAD of the CVS tree.

Ah! Fantastic! We will want some configure option too. That's
a task for our automake/autoconf experts. The GNOME support
seems to require that session support is compiled in too. How
can we do this with configure?

Bye

Dominik

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:38:39 -0500 (EST)

> can we do this with configure?

Is GNOME detectable, or is GNOME support strictly a build-time option? 

--
Steve Robbins                              <[email-masked]>

A man came up to me and said, "I'd like to change your mind,
by hitting it with a rock," he said, "though I am not unkind."

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 16 Mar 1999 10:03:33 -0500

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

  sr> Is GNOME detectable, or is GNOME support strictly a build-time
  sr> option?

Well, with the number of libraries GNOME requires surely there are some
that can be detected.

Then the question becomes, is it worthwhile to allow the user to disable
this support even if the requisite libraries are found?  Will it cause
any issues if run in a non-GNOME environment?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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.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: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:17:44 +0100

> any issues if run in a non-GNOME environment?

Perhaps code bloat? Personally I'd compile GNOME out (and KDE support
for that matter). Having a switch won't hurt for now. If we change
our mind we can easily remove some of the switches. Some of the
switches have been compromised anyway (e.g. multistyle doesn't
cover the MenuStyle rework).

Bye

Dominik