Re: Fvwm95 new version---is it a bug?
> Is it a bug?
Looks like it, but I cannot find it.
> I spent a couple of hours the other day learning how to edit the
> config files for fvwm95, and got some nice features working, when...
> Lo and behold, I found a NEW version of fvwm95 in hamm...
Hamm is "unstable". Whenever, after you install somethign from hamm,
no smoke comes out of your computer, you should say to yourselve
"whow, lucky me: no smoke!". Having said that, I'm running
unstable too (everythign I run comes from unstable).
> When I installed it, it stomped on my newly edited config files.
Whow, lucky you: no smoke :).
But, yes, I'd be somewhat annoyed too.
> It didn't ask. The script just printed a message it was installing a new
> version of the config file.
The config file it installed was /etc/X11/fvwm95/system.fvwm95rc-menu.
The file you edited must have been /etc/X11/fvwm95/system.fvwm2rc95
(note the 2 and the 95 and rc flopped).
Are you sure /etc/X11/fvwm95/system.fvwm2rc95 was removed?
I think not.
> Is this a bug? It's AT LEAST a nit.
If it's true, it's a bug. But I have my doubs
> "GNU ... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I
> am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it."
> ---Richard Stallman
I was thinking of putting a quote from RMS in my signature too.
>From when/where was that one taken?
joost witteveen, email@example.com
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .