Re: Future of fvwm2-plus
> On Tue, 01 Dec, 1998, David N. Welton wrote:
>> Hi, I wanted to ask the group opinion on the future of this
>> package. What with a new job in San Francisco, I'm really not sure
>> I'll have time to do it justice, and it isn't all that different
>> from fvwm2 (it has IconGravity and a few other little patches).
>> Does anyone actually use it? Like it? See a need for it? If not,
>> maybe it could be moved somewhere like orphaned or experimental, so
>> as not to destroy the work already done.
I didn't get this original mail, so I will answer to the reply...
I like the iconbox-patch, which is included in fvwm2-plus, but except
from this, I prefer the fvwm2 package, which seems to be a bit more up
to date...
So I still use my locally patched fvwm2 (only added the iconbox
patch), which I used before I found fvwm2-plus.
I think, it shouldn't be a problem to remove fvwm2-plus at least when
looking for fvwm 2.1.*, which is in alpha phase at the moment, because
this has the iconbox patch (and some other new features) included
(only the new border coloring algorithm creates ugly colors, but this
may be a feature...).
Tschoeeee
Roland
--
* roland@spinnaker.rhein.de * http://www.rhein.de/~roland/ *
PGP: 1024/DD08DD6D 2D E7 CC DE D5 8D 78 BE 3C A0 A4 F1 4B 09 CE AF
Reply to: