cvs commit: ports/x11-wm/fluxbox Makefile

Jeremy Messenger mezz7 at cox.net
Wed Aug 11 22:42:17 PDT 2004


On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:09:32 +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy  
<bogorodskiy at inbox.ru> wrote:

>  Adam wrote:
>
>> And FWIW, seeing as how the old fluxbox will never get another update, I
>> really don't think that x11-wm/fluxbox should be kept in the tree any
>> longer; I think that x11-wm/fluxbox-devel should overwrite
>> x11-wm/fluxbox immediately. </can of worms>
>
> Agreed. Anyway, if many people want to see fluxbox in the ports tree it
> could be returned, doesn't it?

Yes, as long if anyone want to take the maintainership and send it to PR  
for request the repo copy (fluxbox -> fluxbox-old, fluxbox01 or whatever)  
just as I said (you stripped out) in my previous email. I will not object  
on this, but it's up to portmgr too if they approve.

> As for fluxbox-devel -> fluxbox repocopy right now I think that it's a
> good idea, becouse fluxbox-devel seems to be even more stable than  
> fluxbox and it's supported by developers.

I personal rather to wait until it's offical released by the developers.  
Styles that come with the tarball are out of date and few other small  
things could use to fix. I am sure that the developers will update/fix the  
styles in the final.

> PS I don't really want to start a war simular to the shells/bash* one :-)

That kind of half war is kind of silly if you ask me ;-), but I only agree  
about 'foobar' without number should be offical version/stable one unless  
it's something special like gnome2/kde3/libxml2. Anyway, I doubt we will  
have another war for fluxbox.

Cheers,
Mezz

> -Roman Bogorodskiy


-- 
mezz7 at cox.net  -  mezz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome at FreeBSD.org


More information about the cvs-all mailing list