Re: wm in default installation

Matteo wrote:
> Hi, i've discussed with FluxBox developer, and fluxbox it's
> license compilant (MIT license) and there's no problems to
> substitute fvwm with fluxbox on OpenBSD, so if it's ok to
> substitute it, the last thing it's the work team ... i think i
> can made a work team for this but if fluxbox will not be
> integrated into default tre .. it's a waste of time ..

Work on making software better and more useable is never a waste of time.
> so before
> start i would like to know if anyone care of a new OpenBSD wm
> more new and more cool.
> 
At least I care. But I don't wan't to spend time (that I don't have) on 
fixing bugs or handling support requests for it. So it must be in good 
shape before a decision is made to include it, not the other way around.

> Please let me know what do you think.

A good start, which would never be lost anyways is to work on updating 
the current port to the latest fluxbox version and have the current 
patches from the port merged in the main fluxbox sources.

Another thing is that OpenBSD currently has no gettext support in the 
base system. I don't know how difficult it is to build a version that 
doesn't need gettext.

So far I've found a few annoying behaviours (non standard menu 
interactions where the button used to pop up the menu doesn't always 
work to select an item, or the fact that you can't select an item by 
dragging the mouse) on amd64 but I'm not sure if there are bugs 
(possibly caused by 64-bit related X protocol errors) or design
choices.

And finally the manual page could be enhanced too. It's a bit terse for now.
-- 
					Matthieu