Subject: fvwm Visibility

From: Nadim Saeed <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:07:26 -0800 (PST)

"pesh (a perl.org project) is a Perl interface to Enlightenment IPC"

  http://linuxtoday.com/stories/12980.html

Just read this in-passing and thought I'd mention it.

How do the fvwm developers look at something like this for fvwm ?  I now
there was an FvwmPerl module (it's gone now), but would it be worth while to
get 'perl.org' involved just so to increase fvwm's visibility ?

BTW: I know controlling fvwm can be gotten via different means (FvwmScript,
     etc).  What I'm getting at is whether there is a need to give fvwm more
     visibility (more PR, if you will :-)

Just a thought..

 - Nadim

--
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: Michael Han <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:35:11 -0800

Previously from Nadim Saeed
>get 'perl.org' involved just so to increase fvwm's visibility ?

FvwmPerl isn't gone. It's just out of the FVWM distribution. However,
it's still in CPAN (I'm pretty sure). It no longer works (I'm pretty
sure) because the last version released: 1) explicitly looked for the
version == 2.0.46; 2) supports an outdated module interface. But these
are pretty trivial to fix. I still use FvwmPerl (and TkPerlConsole, or
whatever it was called) on a regular basis. Oops, and I never updated
its module interface!
-- 
[email-masked]                         http://www.best.com/~mikehan/
coffee achiever                              San Francisco, California
"Life sucks and I haven't seen the sun in 9 months...  but the coffee
better be good or you're dead." - Seattlite
--
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]