Subject: FVWM: Problem with FvwmTheme

From: Rahul Rekapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:12:12 +0530

Hi,
I recently checked out the latest build from CVS and compiled and
installed Fvwm. in my .fvwmrc, I have defined gradients using Colorsets as

*FvwmTheme: Colorset 1 ....HGradient....
*FvwmTheme: Colorset 2 ....VGradient....

and i loaded the FvwmTheme module as
ModuleSynchronous Timeout 5 FvwmTheme.

This used to work perfectly with 2.4.x versions.

in the new version, I get the message FvwmTheme is obsolete, please
refer to colorsets section of fvwm(1) man page. As a result, No
gradients are rendered at all.

My query is that if FvwmTheme is obsolete, how can i define new
colorsets. Please help me.

Rgds
Rahul

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is 
			you're what's left
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:28:37 +0000

> gradients are rendered at all.

This is a temporary problem, it should be fixed, see the fvwm-workers
mailing list archive.

The intend is to fully support the FvwmTheme module in 2.6.x although it
is obsolete.

> colorsets. Please help me.

The new syntax is to remove "*FvwmTheme: " prefix:

  Colorset 10 fg black, bg rgb:E4/D2/C0, VGradient 30 grey50 rgb:E4/D2/C0

But, as I said there is a current problem with gradients, just wait for it
to be solved, or use the 2002-04-16 snapshot.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:07:41 +0200

> colorsets. Please help me.

Just keep cool :-)  We're currently integrating FvwmTheme into the
fvwm core.  Please keep in mind that the odd version numbers
(second digit) are development versions and may not work as
expected.  When we're done rewriting the code, everything will
work like it did before, without changing the config file.
Another problem you might fall for is that the fvwm2 executable
was renamed to fvwm.  If you do not use "make install" you might
run an old executable with the new FvwmTheme version (in other
words: without FvwmTheme).  "make install" creates a symbolic link
from fvwm2 to fvwm.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

-- 
Dominik Vogt, email: [email-masked]
LifeBits Aktiengesellschaft, Albrechtstr. 9, D-72072 Tuebingen
fon: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-0, fax: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-20
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:55:48 +0000

On 22 Apr 2002 12:07:41 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> 
> If you do not use "make install" ...

Sorry, this is really something I don't want to be ever suggested.

The "make install" step is mandatory for every non-trivial program.
There is no any reason not to do it, except for ending up with a non
working installation.

All installation directories are configurable using ./configure.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 19:10:43 +0200

> All installation directories are configurable using ./configure.

That may all be correct, but the reasons why I personally do not
use make install are

 1) "make install" does not work from within a running fvwm session
    (at least the last time I tried).  It does not overwrite the
    running executables.
 2) It's ten times slower than my custom script that just overwrite
    the executables before restarting.

When I'm hacking away, I easily reinstall and restart fvwm 100
times per day.  With my script, that takes about five to ten
minutes, with "make install" it's one to two hours.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:56:19 +0000

>     (at least the last time I tried).  It does not overwrite the

I do "make install" with fvwm running for years. I think the problem was
prior to some linux version (2.0.x?), but it just always worked for me.

>     the executables before restarting.

On my 350MHz. 128Mb machine "make install" after "make" takes 20 seconds,
pretty acceptable. But I usually only do "make install" in the fvwm/
directory if modules are not changed, this takes one second.

> minutes, with "make install" it's one to two hours.

I don't think so. You should do "make" anyway, it consumes all the time.
"make install" takes a constant time, 20 seconds on my machine. And if you
combine "make; make install" into one "make install" it takes even less.

If you post your script, I can point out many problems with it as
compared to "make install". The point is your script to work correctly
should reimplement what "make install" does, i.e. be equally slow.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:14:47 +0000

On 22 Apr 2002 11:28:37 +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> This is a temporary problem, it should be fixed

It already seems to be fixed in cvs.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: szonyi calin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:57:50 +0200 (CEST)

--- Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> a écrit : > On Mon,
Apr 22, 2002 at 01:12:12PM +0530, Rahul
> work like it did before, without changing the config

Well, the features i did't like when switching from 
fvwm 2.2 to fvwm 2.4 were errors and warnings about 
my config (obsolete commands etc. )

So i had to change my old fvwm 2.2 config file to make
fvwm 2.4 happy. :-(

Is this a feature ?

Will it hapen again when fvwm 2.6 wil be released ?

> words: without FvwmTheme).  "make install" creates a

which s a good thing if you have an old fvwm 1 version
on your disk :-)

> Dominik ^_^  ^_^

Bye 
Calin

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:35:14 +0200

> combine "make; make install" into one "make install" it takes even less.

You see, the difference is 1 second with my script and 20 seconds
with make install.  The relation is pushed a bit in favour of make
install because restarting takes constant time.

> compared to "make install".

I'm fully aware of the many problems of the script.  Usually I
copy only the executables (and only if they changed).  I didn't
care to adapt copying of config files, utils and shell scripts for
a long time.

> The point is your script to work correctly

Sure, it should do that, but I don't need most of the make install
functionality.  But it would never become as slow because it has
the paths of the files to install hard coded and doesn't have to
start make five dozen times in various directories.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:15:37 +0000

On 23 Apr 2002 09:57:50 +0200, szonyi calin wrote:
> 
> Well, the features i did't like when switching from fvwm 2.2 to fvwm 2.4
> were errors and warnings about my config (obsolete commands etc. )
> 
> So i had to change my old fvwm 2.2 config file to make fvwm 2.4 happy.
> :-(
> 
> Is this a feature ?

Error messages inform you that a syntax was changed, this is a good thing.
You should correct all these errors only once when upgrading from one
major version to another. Ask yourself, why do you upgrade? Probably to
get new features, so you should learn a new syntax anyway.

There are a lot of commands and options in FVWM, some are old, some new.
Sometimes the new contradict the old ones. It make sence to clean up the
mess from time to time to have a clean code and a clean syntax. Users
benefit from the clean code, because it has less hidden bugs, and from
the clean syntax, because it makes configuring easier and more intuitive.

> Will it hapen again when fvwm 2.6 wil be released ?

Maybe. But you should not be afraid of this. Think like this: they cared
to change this thing, means they worked on it and probably improved it.
At least this is how I try to think myself about evolutional changes in
programs that I use.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Alex Wallis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:12:02 +0930

> > So i had to change my old fvwm 2.2 config file to make fvwm 2.4 happy.

Mikhael forgot to mention that the fvwm team take great pains to make
this transition as easy and painless as possible by providing a
conversion script called fvwm24_convert on older versions, but current
cvs has recently renamed to fvwm-convert-2.4. It even has it's own man
page!  :)

See Section 3.10 at http://www.fvwm.org/generated/FAQ.html

> > Will it hapen again when fvwm 2.6 wil be released ?

The current cvs version of file fvwm-convert-2.6 merely contains...
#!/usr/bin/perl
# -*-perl-*-

# Convert .fvwm2rc from 2.4.x format to 2.6.x format.

... so I'm guessing if/when it becomes necessary, this file may grow.

> At least this is how I try to think myself about evolutional changes in

:) Alex