Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:23:36 -0600 From: Drew Sanford <lauasanf@bellsouth.net> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Dmitry Sivachenko <demon@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org, asami@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Afterstep port Message-ID: <3A11AD58.22505BB3@bellsouth.net> References: <20001114114037.A46808@hub.freebsd.org> <3A11A425.584AA377@bellsouth.net> <3A11A50F.D30381E3@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Drew Sanford wrote: > > > Dmitry Sivachenko wrote: > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > Is there any sense to keep x11-wm/afterstep port? > > > It represents an old 1.0 version, while the latest stable version is 1.8.4 > > > (afterstep-stable port). > > > > > > If there will be no objections, I propose to remove x11-wm/afterstep > > > and to repo-copy afterstep-stable -> afterstep. > > > > I personally think this is a bad idea, unless you plan to keep an > > afterstep 1.0 port somewhere. Its a simple, lightweight, very functional > > manager. Not being able to simply type 'make install' to add it to a new > > machine would severely increase the amount of typing I have to do to set > > up a new machine:) > > Hmm, what's wrong with afterstep-stable? Does it require any additional tweaking > to be usable comparing with afterstep-1.0? > > -Maxim I believe that the new versions of afterstep have their configureation spread across multiple files. Version 1.0 only used one config file (~/.steprc). I only have to look in one place to edit a menu, or make a change, instead of haivng to remember which features are in which files. -- Drew Sanford lauasanf@bellsouth.net or drew@planetwe.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A11AD58.22505BB3>