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

Re: FVWM 2.2 officially released



I also suggest, given the violent reactions of some people to the prospect
of losing fvwm 1.x:

The existing fvwm package can be reproduced as an "fvwm1" or "fvwm-classic"
package, which you can give to someone else to maintain (or orphan) if you
desire.

If there is a new release of fvwm upstream that is declared stable by its
(upstream) maintainers, I see no reason that we should fork a new package
for it.  *IT* should be contained in the "fvwm" package, no ifs, ands, or
buts.

Including the version number in the package name makes sense for shared
libraries, and it may make sense for things that are practically
operating systems all by themselves (like the emacsen), but this is just a
window manager (albeit a very popular one).  We don't fork off a new
package name at the drop of a hat just because people like the old stable
package.

I *do*, however, agree with the sentiment that the fvwm1rc-to-fvwm2rc
converter NOT be run automatically on users' files.  There are too many
risks, and it is just plain rude for the system administrator to modify the
contents of user home directories anyway.

The best thing to do in such situations is just to put a message in
/etc/motd, and/or mail all users about the change, but that's not something
the Debian package should do.

I recommend leaving the converter around for users to employ at their own
risk.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson              |    I am sorry, but what you have mistaken
Debian GNU/Linux                 |    for malicious intent is nothing more
branden@ecn.purdue.edu           |    than sheer incompetence!
cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |    -- J. L. Rizzo II

Attachment: pgpyvHfcTYI7c.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: