Subject: Another #define to be removed ?

From: Matthias Clasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 03:04:16 +0200

I just added a forgotten protection by NON_VIRTUAL to my last
commit. Doing so i noticed that NON_VIRTUAL has no configure
support. Is this #define needed at all ? If we don't remove it,
we should perhaps change the name of the binary to fwm if compiled
with NON_VIRTUAL ?

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Clasen, 
Tel. 0761/203-5606
Email: [email-masked]
Mathematisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg
--
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: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 14:43:44 +0200

On Sat, Apr 17, 1999 at 03:04:16AM +0200, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> support. Is this #define needed at all ?

I vote for removing the define. I don't think things work well
if you do set NON_VIRTUAL.

> If we don't remove it, we should perhaps change the name of
> the binary to fwm if compiled with NON_VIRTUAL ?

8-)

Bye

Dominik ^_^

--
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [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: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 09:37:03 -0400

Dominik Vogt wrote:
> 
> I vote for removing the define. 

	I second Dominik's vote.

> > the binary to fwm if compiled with NON_VIRTUAL ?

	How about twm2...?

- Bob