[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?

Firstly, I just wanted to thank Anthony Towns for his concise and
excellent responses to some of your points.  I won't repeat what he
says, but I have this minor point to add ...

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?"):
> Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> >  -norway:~> fvwm -cmd 'FvwmM4 .fvwmrc'
> >  sh: m4: command not found
> >  [ and then it runs with an empty config file using builtin defaults ]
> 	And it works. Not ideally, but it did not dump me back to the
>  login screen. I can now put in place a second config file, which does
>  not need m4, and it shall work even better -- perhaps not all the
>  bells and whistles I might have, had I installed m4, but hey. It WORKS!!

Err, the behaviour you see is AIUI the same you get from *any* failure
by fvwm to open or parse the config file; ie, it's fvwm's failsafe
response (which is reasonably good, but could do with better error
reporting in most configurations).


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: