Subject: Gnome is not fvwm compilant !

From: Olivier Chapuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 20:38:34 +0100

Hello,

First of all forget the subject of this message :)
The subject is the new GnomeShowDesks function. I think there is
a problem here. The problem (IMHO) is not this function neither the 
patch of Matt (the gnome pager works find after you have discover the
GnomeShowDesks function in the source), but the way that fvwm deal 
with the situation: "fvwm compiled with --enable-gnome but not executed 
under a gnome-session"

With the current GnomeShowDesks implementation, even if you run fvwm
alone, you've got error if you go to an unknown desk for GnomeShowDesks
or if you open an app on an "unknown desk" (and the app can work in a
bad way: try xman). I'm sure that we can fix this, but in the future
we probably get similar problems.
My suggestion is to add a -gnome option to fvwm, if this option is not
set then all the "gnome functions" will simply return. Or better
can we detect if fvwm is executed via a gnome session ?   

Olivier
--
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: Olivier Chapuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 23:46:09 +0100

Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> set then all the "gnome functions" will simply return.

No answer means "ok, do that ..." or "No, this is crazy ..." ??
Note that I've got an off-list "vote" by Matt for the -gnome option.
Here the message:

>Oops!

>I had actually added a -gnome option to round one of my patches, but in the
>course of re-writing them to work with the existing gnome support, I dropped
>the option, figuring it was un-needed but your comments remind me why it
>was there.

>On the subject of auto detection, the only way I can see is to set up the 
>communication window, but not enable other features until we get a mesage
>from gnome

>-Matt

Olivier

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:20:37 +0100

> No answer means "ok, do that ..." or "No, this is crazy ..." ??
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The latter ;-)  This should be a command, not an option.  And the default
should be to enable GNOME support, not disable it (I think).  If we had
such a command, would the '--enable-gnome' option still make sense?
Should it be replaced by an option '--enable-gnome-by-default' or
'--disable-gnome-by-default' instead?

Bye

Dominik ^_^

-- 
Dominik Vogt, Agilent Technologies, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/464-4596, fax: 07031/464-3883, [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: Olivier Chapuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:16:55 +0100

> > No answer means "ok, do that ..." or "No, this is crazy ..." ??

It make sense for an "expert" that compile itself fvwm. But, the problem
here (in my subjective opinion) is that a number of users will do:
rpm -Uvh fvwm-2.4.0.i386.rpm (--force --nodeps)
Anyway, the point for me (and I think for every body) is that we must be 
able to run fvwm alone without trouble even if it is compiled with GNOME support, and it seems that GnomeShowDesks breaks this. But, I'm sure that 
someone (not me, since my idea seems to be bad) will commit a solution.

Olivier