On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 jmknoble_at_pobox.com wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Greg Fall wrote:
>
> Actually, the packager is not unidentified:
>
> [jmknoble_at_quipu:/local/src/contrib]$ rpm -qip fvwm2-2.0.46-3.src.rpm
> Name : fvwm2 Distribution: (none)
> Version : 2.0.46 Vendor: (none)
> Release : 3 Build Date: Sun Sep 07
> 15:37:00 1997
> Install date: (not installed) Build Host: quipu.earth
> Group : X11/Window Managers Source RPM: (none)
> Size : 821956
> Packager : Jim Knoble <jmknoble_at_pobox.com>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> URL : http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/
Jim,
Naturally, this is exactly where I looked; I just didn't realize that the
packager is not listed with the binary RPM.
> The reason the man pages for the modules have the `.2' suffix is so
> that they don't stomp on the manual pages for the same modules from
> fvwm-1.24r (or fvwm95), which ships with Red Hat Linux. This shouldn't
> really be a surprise---the `original' fvwm2 RPM package shipped on the
I figured that was the reason, but the man pages for the 2.0.45 modules,
which were separately packaged in fvwm2-modules-2.0.45, did NOT require
the ".2". I have used them a million times. In any case, no biggie. To
get these things to change I can certainly build my own fvwm2, but the
differences were noticeable to me, the average schmo installing binary
RPMS, so I thought it was a good idea to mention them. I didn't mean to
imply that I blindly upgraded to 2.0.46 then freaked out upon discovering
that a couple of things changed. Cheers,
G.F.
--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--
Greg Fall
gmfall_at_engin.umich.edu
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~gmfall
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_hpc.uh.edu.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_hpc.uh.edu.
Received on Thu Oct 16 1997 - 09:26:28 BST