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

Re: FVWM 2.2 officially released



On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 01:36:45PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> FVWM 2.2 has just been released officially, so that FVWM 1.x is no
> longer supported or maintained.  However, the Debian version of fvwm2
> which I have just adopted has so many open bug reports that I dare not
> deprecate fvwm for the time being.

Ah, wonderful; I look forward to it, as a happy fvwm(2) user for 3 years.

> But when I do, I have an interesting problem: how to do the
> conversion.  There is a script available for converting .fvwmrc files
> to .fvwm2rc files, and I can remove the fvwm package from
> ftp.debian.org.  But how can I ensure that people know to use the
> fvwm2 package?  I know that this is an ongoing problem, so here are
> the alternatives as I see them:
> 
> (1) Have fvwm become an empty package (priority extra) which Depends:
>     fvwm2.  OK.

No.  This is a vomitous solution; do not be seduced into using it.

> (3) Use some nice, new Replaced-by: feature or similar.  If it
>     exists.

It doesn't exist.  Yet.  Jason Gunthorpe says it is impossible to implement
in the fully general form that people want.  I trust his judgement, but I'd
still like to see a while paper on the subject.  :)

> But neither is particularly nice.  Any views?
> 
> Also, fvwm is now copying the Linux numbering scheme of 2.2.x being
> the stable version and 2.3.x being unstable.  How would it be to have
> a separate (conflicting) fvwm2-beta package following the development
> track?

I suggest:

fvwm remain the package name for stable upstream releases.
fvwm-beta be the package name for unstable upstream releases.

(Not fvwm2-beta; someday fvwm 3.0 might be in development. :) )

fvwm2, as a package name, should eventually be abandoned.  For now it can
be 2.2.x, and fvwm itself can be left at 1.24.whatever, until you feel
comfortable with making the fvwm package contain fvwm 2.2.x.

Eventually, the fvwm2 package will be a dead end package for people, but
once you're ready to abandon it and migrate everyone to fvwm/fvwm-beta,
you could simply have the postinst make some noise about being obsolete.
It's not shiningly elegant, but it's better than playing tricks on the
packaging system.

Thanks for taking over fvwm; it's nice to see it actively maintained again.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson              |           Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux                 |           mark with chalk,
branden@ecn.purdue.edu           |           cut with axe,
cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |           hope like hell.

Attachment: pgpxpMSwc0zVW.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: