Subject: FVWM: Whats the most stable version in the 2.5.x series

From: Ukpong Ukpong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 01:32:53 +0100 (BST)

Hi all I am doing a projects using a fvwm and need to know the most stable 
fvwm version in the 2.5.x series to use.

--
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: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:07:05 +0200

> fvwm version in the 2.5.x series to use.

If you need a stable version, use the latest 2.4.x release.  None
of the 2.5.x releases can be called stable.

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: Bernard Lang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:57:17 +0200

> of the 2.5.x releases can be called stable.

and in what time frame, very approximately, is a stable release
(version 2.6.x I guess) of 2.5 to be expected ?
  ... or is it intended only for hackers, but not for normal users ?

Bernard

-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

[email-masked]             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
--
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: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:48:24 +0200

>   ... or is it intended only for hackers, but not for normal users ?

I'm sorry, but nobody can make a sensible statement about it at
the moment.  Definitely not within the next three month.

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

---

From: stu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:57:12 +0200

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:57:17 +0200
Bernard Lang <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > > Hi all I am doing a projects using a fvwm and need to know the
> > > most stable fvwm version in the 2.5.x series to use.
> > 

I'm no hacker and I use fvwm 2.5.8(cvs) on my work PC, where I can't
afford hours of downtime to mess with my wm (my boss will get agitated
:). I don't have any problems with it, and the transparency support
makes it a must IMHO.

-- 
Stuart Logie
Programmer

UNIVERSAL COMPUTER SERVICES (PTY) LTD
A member of South Africa's largest retail software vendor, the UCS Group

Tel : (011) 712 1371   Cell : 082 902 5632
Fax : (011) 339 3421
Internet : http://ucs.co.za

"I am the Unconquerable Spirit."
               -- Poet Unknown
   
Powered by Debian GNU/Linux - testing/unstable

---

From: Bernard Lang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:43:57 +0200

> :). I don't have any problems with it, and the transparency support

My point was not adressed to you personnally
It is just that 2.5 has been in the works quite a long time, and
there is no end in sight.
  Since it is considered unstable, it is not packaged for many
distrib, including the one I use (Mandrake).  Though someone gave me
some brief instructions, it was not precise enough for me to follow.

I just cannot afford the time to guess how I am supposed to compile
things, with the right environment.  I do other things to contribute
to free software, and any time I spend on this is essentially wasted
(since it is of use only to myself).  I understand that real men use
only Debian ... well I am not one of them.

Bernard

---

From: Kingsly John <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:40:44 +0530

> there is no end in sight.

I've been using the 2.5 series for nearly 2 years now.. and have probably had
a handful of crashes so far.

> some brief instructions, it was not precise enough for me to follow.

Does Mandrake still ship fvwm ? 

> (since it is of use only to myself).

Whats wrong with these binary rpms here ?

http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=fvwm

Have you even bothered to try 

rpmbuild -ta fvwm-2.5.10.tar.gz

Or alternately you can hire the services of a consultant to package and
install fvwm on your machine!

>  I understand that real men use only Debian ... well I am not one of them.

And what does have to do with anything ?

Kingsly

---

From: Bernard Lang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:05:22 +0200

> Does Mandrake still ship fvwm ? 

no  ... I do not know why
 ... and I would like them to ... they might if 2.6 comes out

> http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=fvwm

All those intended for Mandrake seem to be version 1.24

I have not tried these ...  aren't they old versions

> rpmbuild -ta fvwm-2.5.10.tar.gz

no because no one suggested it to me, and I have never done it.

Now, will that build a package that runs with Mandrake, if done in my
Mandrake environment ?
  I will try to see a real manual ... man does not say much ...

The reason for my question is that I did download
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/fvwm-themes/fvwm-2.5.8-2.i386.rpm
intended for Red-Hat, that I found on the FVWM site at <URL:
http://www.fvwm.org/>.

  but it did not work (not that I expected very much)

> install fvwm on your machine!

the whole point is that one should not need that.  So there may be
a pointer to some simple doc missing somewhere.

> And what does have to do with anything ?

good question, and sorry about this display (no pun intended).  Well I
found packages for Debian and Red-Hat but that is all.
  I guess it was just an uncalled for reaction, because too many
people, though not here, consider that one should be a hacker to
deserve free software.  And it does make my life difficult, not so
much for myself, but when I try to promote free software.

  Fvwm happens to be my preferred WM, and has been for many years.
But I do not have much time to spend on configuring my linux box.

Thanks for replying

Bernard

---

From: Bernard Lang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:39:26 +0200

> I have not tried these ...  aren't they old versions

and at 
http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=fvwm2

there is only version 2.4 for Mandrake.

Bernard

---

From: Kingsly John <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:18:40 +0530

> Now, will that build a package that runs with Mandrake, if done in my

yes it should build one.

Ditto with the ones on rpmfind.. just get the source rpm and compile for your
machine... if it compiles on your machine it will definitely run fine!

rpmbuild --rebuild blah-foo.src.rpm 

Kingsly

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:09:48 +0000

> rpmbuild --rebuild blah-foo.src.rpm 

This is a bad advice, the good advice is to follow the instructions in:

  http://fvwm.org/documentation/dev_creating_rpms.php

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Chris Rouch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:03:06 +0200

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:09:48 +0000
Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > 
> > Ditto with the ones on rpmfind.. just get the source rpm and compile
> > for your machine... if it compiles on your machine it will
> > definitely run fine!
> > 
> This is a bad advice, 

Why is that bad advice? 

> the good advice is to follow the instructions in:
> 

It would be useful to have a link to that from the FAQ, although I think
it's overly complicated. These 3 simple steps work for me:

1) Create a ~/.rpmmacros file thus:
	
%_topdir /home/user/redhat

(that's taken from the page you referenced )

2) download the tarball and put it in /tmp

3) run e.g. rpmbuild -tb /tmp/fvwm-2.5.10.tar.gz

fvwm already provides a .spec file in the tarball, so IMO it makes
sense to use the facilities rpm provides rather than unpack the
tarball and run configure and make.

Regards,

Chris

---

From: Bernard Lang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:10:32 +0200

>   http://fvwm.org/documentation/dev_creating_rpms.php

not competent (yet ?) on what is good or bad advice ...  but ...

this is in the developer section of the site ... which of course I
would not even look at, not being a developer.  Actually, it is not
even visible at the top of the home page ... though it is in the
quick-jumps list of the home page.

  If this information is usable by anyone, maybe it should be
referenced from the download page http://fvwm.org/download/

for people who do not find an appropriate version.

Just a suggestion.

Bernard

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:32:33 +0000

> > > rpmbuild --rebuild blah-foo.src.rpm 

This advice works in some cases (when you are happy with defaults).
But there is a more configurable (and I think convenient) way to do this.

> (that's taken from the page you referenced )

I think rpmbuild does not create this directory and its subdirs, so this
should be done once too.

> 2) download the tarball and put it in /tmp

If one uses cvs to update releases or snapshots, then he doesn't need
this download step.

> 3) run e.g. rpmbuild -tb /tmp/fvwm-2.5.10.tar.gz

Then you get fvwm-2.5.10-1 rpm and you have no chance to change the
release string, the configure params and the make params.

> tarball and run configure and make.

The provided spec file is ok and may be used as a template. However it is
patched by "make rpm-dist" procedure that is the suggested/universal way.
I kind of like that users get the release string "0.current-date" by
default, and not "1" that usually means final/official rpm release.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:53:36 +0000

> quick-jumps list of the home page.

I think the "Developement Info" is not included in the default web pager
intentionally, but I may mistake.

> for people who do not find an appropriate version.

This information is not intended for regular users, but for advanced
users with experience in building fvwm from a snapshot/cvs and packaging
rpms. But you are right, it is not quite limited to developers.

Regards,
Mikhael.

---

From: Bernard Lang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:30:19 +0200

> rpms. But you are right, it is not quite limited to developers.

It would be nice to have something for regular users, every now and
then ...   version 2.5 has been in the works for years ...
  We know we are taking chances with an unstable version, but at the
same time everyone says it is not that unstable.
  But taking chances and having to learn too much is not the same thing.

Anyway, thanks to all ... I'll try.

Bernard

---

From: Ukpong Ukpong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:14:36 +0100 (BST)

> Anyway, thanks to all ... I'll try.
This my point exactily there is no use it using 2.4 doesn't have enought 
features yet users are encouraged to use it beacause it is "stabel." If 
there was a faster stable release cycle that would solve the problem.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:44:34 +0200

> there was a faster stable release cycle that would solve the problem. 

Yes, sure.  Everybody is welcome to help in getting the 2.6
release out the door.  Please remember that we are all volunteers
spending our free time on fvwm.

Ciao

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" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Bernard Lang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:58:35 +0200

> spending our free time on fvwm.

we do realize that, and I personally feel awkward when I ask.

  The idea is that maybe a little gentle pressure from friends (we
would not even bother if we were not friends) may help draw a line and
get a version out.

  I am blind on the current state of FVWM.  But if, as many seem to
think, there is much more functionality in 2.5.10 than in 2.4, it could
be a good idea to decide to have something out as stable version.
Especially since there are comments that it is fairly reliable.

  Or are there reasons I cannot guess not to do it ?  maybe 2.5
functionnality is behind that of 2.4 in some areas ?  Sorry to be naive
on these issues.

with all due respect to your work

cordialement

Bernard
  who is totally incompetent to help in these matters.

---

From: Michelle Konzack <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:31:47 +0200

Sorry for my late answer...

>  ... or is it intended only for hackers, but not for normal users ?

I am using 2.5.8 as backport for Debian/WOODY and it works quiet well ;-)

>Bernard

Greetings
Michelle

-- 
Registered Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:19:57 -0400

Michelle Konzack <[email-masked]> writes:
> >> > Hi all I am doing a projects using a fvwm and need to know the most
> >> > stable fvwm version in the 2.5.x series to use.
> >>

Anyone can use 2.5.x.

If you send mail to this list and ask for a stable release
you will be referred to a 2.4.x release since that is the stable
branch.

Probably some of the 2.5.x releases are more stable than other 2.5.x
releases, but I don't think anyone knows which ones are more stable and
which ones aren't.  When a 2.5.x release is created it's almost always done
with a source tree that we think works well.

In my opinion, the only 2.5.x release that it makes sense to use is
the latest one.

> I am using 2.5.8 as backport for Debian/WOODY and it works quiet well ;-)

All thru the 2.5.x release I've run from CVS and I've had very
few problems.  I don't think that makes it stable through.

-- 
Dan Espen                           E-mail: [email-masked]