Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#2935 - Fluxbox-devel, should be brought into extra
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by James Rayner (iphitus) - Saturday, 09 July 2005, 11:05 GMT
Last edited by Damir Perisa (damir.perisa) - Saturday, 09 July 2005, 14:54 GMT
Opened by James Rayner (iphitus) - Saturday, 09 July 2005, 11:05 GMT
Last edited by Damir Perisa (damir.perisa) - Saturday, 09 July 2005, 14:54 GMT
|
DetailsThis issue has been debated to death on the forums, and yet another post about it has been posted, so I figured I'd bring it to the attention of the developers again.
Fluxbox-devel (0.9.x) is not unstable. -- It's considered by many (everyone) to be more stable than the 'stable' fluxbox (0.1.14) -- stable/Fluxbox is unsupported. If anyone asks a question of it, the first any other fluxbox user will do is suggest that they update to fluxbox-devel. -- Fluxbox developers will also suggest to people to use the 'unstable' version. -- The old version of fluxbox no longer even compiles. -- The fluxbox mainpage lists stable as (old, unmaintained), and the devel as (maintained, also stable). -- This message from one of the fluxbox devs raises a good point http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?p=90475#90475 -- The users want fluxbox-devel. http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=13648 http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=12678 http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=12691 http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=6813 http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=10241 http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=12383 -- "We try to stay fairly bleeding edge, and typically have the latest stable versions of software." http://www.archlinux.org/about.php -- The Official Fluxbox IRC channel's topic: fluxbox.org devel: 0.9.13, fluxbox.org/version-0.9.php |DOCS:fluxbox.sf.net/docbook/en/html ...... doesnt even mention stable. -- devel has better support for multiple screens, and window manager standards. -- And why everyone wants it, more features. Solution, bring fluxbox-devel into extra along with regular fluxbox. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Tobias Kieslich (tobias)
Monday, 18 July 2005, 10:09 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: finally :)
done
Monday, 18 July 2005, 10:09 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: finally :)
done
Because of a name?
They call it Fluxbox-devel but then turn around and say it's the stable version, which it truly is. They go on to say that the so-called "Stable" version is no longer maintained. Considering that very few users are using v0.1.14 and it appears to be outdated, I agree with iphitus and dibblethewrecker and suggest that Fluxbox-devel should be moved to Arch's stable repo.
Thanks for accepting my thoughts on the matter... :)
my thinking is that if fluxbox devs say that the unstable version is more stable than the stable, then they should announce the unstable version the stable one.
there is no sense in having fluxbox and fluxbox-devel pkgs in [extra]. either we drop fluxbox-devel (from [unstable]) and use fluxbox (from [extra]) that provides the unstable version, or we let it as it is now. developement (suffix "devel") versions of packages should stay in [unstable]
what reason do the fluxbox devels have to let it as it is now? why not dropping the old one and move the new one to be the official stable one?
From what I understand, they will announce it as superseding the past stable version when it hits 1.0.
The actual reason for leaving things as it is, is that I don't wanna kick a working software (fluxbox-"stable") from the repos since a whole bunch of people still use it mainly on old boxes. I mean it's so far just a naming issue. If it doesn't work with gcc4 we are through with this topic anyway and fluxbox-devel will die in unstable and be reborn as fluxbox in extra. And adding two versions of the same software to one repo is also confusing. An "retired" repo would be good, but overkill.
Project started in late 2001; The "stable" branch had its last release in Late 2002. Early 2003, the fluxbox guys dropped the roadmap from devel to stable and left devel as the main tree. It's mid 2005 now, and fluxbox devel is considered stable, thats how its listed on their website.
Sorry to be the one to add this: but even Debian Stable(sarge) features the fluxbox devel tree, v0.9.11.
Probably because Fluxbox stable doesnt even compile now, with GCC3.
And because Debian does, it's derivatives all do, Ubuntu, etc.
Just remove the old version, if people whine point them here....
Over the course of this arguement, which has waged for aeons it seems, I have often seen people defend the users of fluxbox-stable BUT I think I have only once or twice actually seen someone say they use it - are we advocating for people who don't exist? Where are they now?
Seeing as fluxbox-stable needs a gcc patch but fluxbox-devel does not it also raises questions of which is the more stable!
It's funny to consider that if they had forked fluxbox from 0.1.14 and called it fluxbox2 we would never even have had this debate - it would have gone straight in [extra]!
Even if it was called fluxbox-ng it would be there, I inherited the mess from the former maintainer.
Speaking about the future: --enable-imlib or --disable-imlib? Any suggestions?
the fluxbox-devel will die when Judd kills the directory from cvs