Arch Linux

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Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#2965 - Blackbox based WMs conflict?

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by sepht (sepht) - Saturday, 16 July 2005, 06:34 GMT
Last edited by Dale Blount (dale) - Saturday, 16 July 2005, 21:31 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Tobias Kieslich (tobias)
Architecture not specified
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 0.7 Wombat
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Can someone explain to me why Fluxbox, Blackbox, and Hackedbox are set to conflict with each other? Arch is the only system where I have not been able to run Fluxbox and Blackbox.. out of the many I reguarly use.

people have fixed their pkgbuilds in order to allow it.. and they report no problems..
This task depends upon

Closed by  Tobias Kieslich (tobias)
Wednesday, 25 January 2006, 05:13 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:  since both ship a similar named binary it won't resolve
Comment by Tobias Kieslich (tobias) - Sunday, 17 July 2005, 01:55 GMT
A short first b4 i fall asleep.
historically thes *boxes ar forks of each other, manly forks of blackbox. Hence they used to or do share a couple of libraries. with later incarnations these problem might have disappeared. I still think many conflicts are still present. Some conflicts might have disappeared when blackbox now has reached 0.70.x.
I will try to figure out but I still think some trouble is in there. Other distros "solved" that by providing -base libraries shared be the *boxes, which isn't a clean solution either.
Comment by Tobias Kieslich (tobias) - Tuesday, 26 July 2005, 14:42 GMT
btw. who has fixed the PKGBUILDs. It would be helpful to have a look at them instead of reinventing the wheel.
Comment by sepht (sepht) - Tuesday, 16 August 2005, 20:36 GMT
Okay Tobias, I looked at the list of files made by BB and FB today... it looks like the only place they conflict is they both create usr/bin/bsetroot, and unless I am mistaken I'm pretty sure its the same or nearly the same file... I don't think i'll break compatibility one way or another. (its used to set backgrounds, but both BB and FB have alternatives to that)
Comment by Tobias Kieslich (tobias) - Tuesday, 16 August 2005, 21:43 GMT
Thanks for taking actioun on that. Assuming this is just the issue, we should find a place for bsetroot and bsetbg(at least hackedbox and blackbox share that one).
I hoped these files are shell wrapper for xsetroot but these are ELF binaries. Now I would have to dive into the source to find the differences :(
Does anyone knows if these are C wrappers for xsetroot?
Comment by Tobias Kieslich (tobias) - Wednesday, 02 November 2005, 12:05 GMT
fluxbox has renamed bsetroot to fbsetroot(and introduced alot of other trouble by this..). But I don't see how hackedbox and fluxbox can be brought together. Well I can delete hackedbox' bsetroot and make hackedbox dependent on blackbox, but then people will complain about unnecessary dependency...
Comment by Tobias Kieslich (tobias) - Wednesday, 25 January 2006, 05:13 GMT
as long as hackedbox and blackbox both ship bsetroot the conflict remains. Fluxbox has solved by renaming it. Also Hackedbox seems to be a dead project. So I leave it as it is.

Loading...