Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 04:40:38 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org, cy@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/81440: Major improvements to x11-wm/fvwm2-devel port Message-ID: <20050525044038.GB37559@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20050525020058.GA966@holestein.holy.cow> References: <200505241511.j4OFBuMV073443@freefall.freebsd.org> <20050525020058.GA966@holestein.holy.cow>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 10:00:58PM -0400, Parv wrote: > in message <200505241511.j4OFBuMV073443@freefall.freebsd.org>, > wrote Alexey Dokuchaev thusly... > > > > Synopsis: Major improvements to x11-wm/fvwm2-devel port > > > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->cy > > Responsible-Changed-By: danfe > > Responsible-Changed-When: Tue May 24 15:11:37 GMT 2005 > > Responsible-Changed-Why: > > Over to maintainer. > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=81440 > > General *ARGH! CARP!* for the port being OPTION-ified. I'm not sure I understand this assessment correctly. :-) > > More importantly, to the PR originator, why "WITHOUT_XINERAMA ... is > of little use"? Perhaps not to you, but i do use it. So, it's like you have dual-head setup, but don't want to use it for FVWM? In this case, I can rework my patches. Cy@, your call?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050525044038.GB37559>