The desktop-wm herd is understaffed and has a bunch of dead packages lying around which no one wants to maintain. I tried to give a valid alternative for all of the packages I want removed. At first glance, it seems like all of the following packages also have a dead upstream. x11-wm/aewm++ -- alternative: pekwm x11-wm/aewm++-goodies -- see above x11-wm/amiwm -- no release since 1998-03-15 x11-wm/larswm -- alternative: pekwm x11-wm/lwm -- alternative: pekwm x11-wm/pwm -- bug #149593, alternative: ion x11-wm/wmi -- superceded by wmii Treecleaners, please give this bug a few days before taking any action. Although I have checked reverse dependencies via gentoo-portage.com, please recheck them just to be sure. Any objections to removal of these packages can go here. Other desktop-wm removal requests: 72585, 120179, 153220, 153222, 153223, 153224, 153231, 153232
Thread started on gentoo-dev mailing list. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43782
x11-wm/kahakai has a hard dependency on dev-lang/swig-1.3.21, which has whole lot of issues and the maintainer doesn't want to support it any more, and even then it seems to have troubles w/ that particular version (see Bug 132845). Also, development apparently stopped back in 2004. Punt it on your list, maybe?
(In reply to comment #2) > x11-wm/kahakai has a hard dependency on dev-lang/swig-1.3.21, which has whole > lot of issues and the maintainer doesn't want to support it any more, and even > then it seems to have troubles w/ that particular version (see Bug 132845). > Also, development apparently stopped back in 2004. > > Punt it on your list, maybe? > I was planning on doing so, but it turns out nixphoeni is listed as the maintainer of this package, so I guess you should ask him if you want it removed.
nixphoeni, comments wrt x11-wm/kahakai? :)
(In reply to comment #0) > x11-wm/larswm -- alternative: pekwm Treecleaners, please don't remove this. David Shakaryan has replied on gentoo-dev that he is okay with keeping it in the tree at least while there are no bugs reported against it. (Thanks, by the way.)
(In reply to comment #4) > nixphoeni, comments wrt x11-wm/kahakai? :) I'd like to hang on to it. Gimme a week and I'll see if I can patch it up to use the latest swig and/or boost. If not, let's see if we can figure out another solution. I still use it and it works fine on my ~x86 box. See omp? All I ever need is some prodding ;)
(In reply to comment #2) > x11-wm/kahakai has a hard dependency on dev-lang/swig-1.3.21, which has whole > lot of issues and the maintainer doesn't want to support it any more, and even > then it seems to have troubles w/ that particular version (see Bug 132845). Not any more it doesn't (I hope) :) We'll see if I get a response on bug 132845. I've got some small patches applied to a masked version in CVS for testing. I'll unmask it if it fixes that bug and after it goes stable on at least ppc and x86, I can punt the original rev that depends on swig-1.3.21. > Also, development apparently stopped back in 2004. It did, but it still works for me.
Treecleaners, feel free to mask whenever you have the time. Please leave amiwm and larswm unmasked.
Masked with the exception of amiwm and larswm.
If the x11-wm compiles without errors, can we still keep it in the repository? I've been using x11-wm/pwm for over a year now and I recently rebuilt my Gentoo box using 2006.1 and x11-wm/pwm compiled without any errors.
(In reply to comment #10) > If the x11-wm compiles without errors, can we still keep it in the repository? > > I've been using x11-wm/pwm for over a year now and I recently rebuilt my Gentoo > box using 2006.1 and x11-wm/pwm compiled without any errors. > I don't exactly see a reason to keep it. It has an open bug (#149593) and has been superceded by ion. PWM site: "While the original PWM, or PWM1, is no longer maintained, Ion, versions 2 and 3, can to some degree emulate this behaviour, and indeed provide nominal PWM2 and PWM3, although the bindings are different, employing prefix keys." The ebuild seems to be pretty low-maintenance anyways. Maybe add it to a personal overlay or the Sunrise overlay? Tell me what you think. :)
Okay, sounds good. I think I'll move on to Ion.
*** Bug 155081 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #0) > I tried to give a valid alternative for all of the packages I want removed. > At first glance, it seems like all of the following packages also have a > dead upstream. > > x11-wm/lwm -- alternative: pekwm * x11-wm/lwm [ Masked ] Latest version available: 1.2.1 Latest version installed: 1.2.1 Size of downloaded files: 135 kB Homepage: http://www.jfc.org.uk/software/lwm.html Description: The ultimate lightweight window manager License: GPL-2 * x11-wm/pekwm Latest version available: 0.1.3-r2 Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ] Size of downloaded files: 5,884 kB Homepage: http://pekwm.pekdon.net/ Description: A small window mananger based on aewm++ License: GPL-2 Hardly an alternative! Forty-three (43) times the size of lwm! Give me a break. An alternative? Might as well say "Microsoft Vista is an alternative to lwm." Please. Further, pekwm is hard to ascertain, since it's based on a ++ version of something else I've never even heard of, hardly a way to have a pure package. The name of lwm is "lightweight window manager". When I don't want to run GNOME or KDE, I run lwm or ratpoison. lwm is my better maintained backup for ratpoison since sometimes ratpoison doesn't work. I haven't touched anything more complicated than lwm in years. Upstream in lwm is updated well within the last decade; it is hardly dead. In fact, lately they've bloated it a bunch; that's why it's a whopping 135KiB right now! The only other concern I have is security updates. Sigh. Does Ubuntu have lwm?
(In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #0) > > x11-wm/lwm -- alternative: pekwm Trying to see what's being imposed here, I looked up the two web sites for further research: pekwm: Your request for http://pekwm.pekdon.net/ could not be fulfilled, because the connection to pekwm.pekdon.net (80.26.74.113) could not be established. lwm: 2004-09-30 lwm 1.2.1 has been released. The machine it's hosted on has a home website which was last updated by james@jfc.org.uk Mon Aug 14 12:32:22 BST 2006, so recently. LWM is listed prominently in the list of packages in that page. http://www.jfc.org.uk/machines/index.php, however, has a bunch of load errors. Searching for archives of information about lwm and pekwm reveals: lwm -- not much. pekwm -- Oh! oops! Gentoo's portage is outdated for pekwm (but not lwm): the main website seems to be at http://pekwm.org/trac ... roommmate, has to sleep, have to post for now. I noted it said "much expanded feature set", hardly an lwm.
(In reply to comment #14) > Hardly an alternative! Forty-three (43) times the size of lwm! Give me a > break. An alternative? Might as well say "Microsoft Vista is an alternative > to lwm." Please. As I said, I *tried* to give an alternative for each package. I didn't put an excessive amount of time into it. Therefore, I listed pekwm as an alternative because they are somewhat related. I never noticed the difference in file size because I never checked. I've been trying to deal with these removals as nicely as I can, so why don't you cut me some slack and stop with the sarcasm? You could have approached me in a much nicer tone. Anyhow, how is aewm for an alternative? It happens to be only a whopping 39 kB and is based on 9wm, the same WM which lwm is based on. An added bonus is that it is still actively developed.
(In reply to comment #15) > pekwm -- Oh! oops! Gentoo's portage is outdated for pekwm (but not lwm): the > main website seems to be at http://pekwm.org/trac First of all, 0.1.5 is the newest version and *is* in portage. Second, the website is listed correctly in the 0.1.5 ebuild. Apparently no one ever got around to updating the HOMEPAGE in the old ebuild. I guess I'll do that now just to please you. ;)
The developer of aewm++ goes by the handle 'majyk' on freenode and can be found in #sandbox. Development of it has ceased but it's a good manager with some neat features and it would be a shame to get rid of it. I think this is one of the problems with gentoo recently, removing things too quickly.
(In reply to comment #18) > The developer of aewm++ goes by the handle 'majyk' on freenode and can be found > in #sandbox. Development of it has ceased but it's a good manager with some > neat features and it would be a shame to get rid of it. Ah, you got this comment in just in time. I had a quick chat with majyk. Although it seems there was no release in years and he stated that it's not very useful anymore (and said that he doesn't mind me removing it), I decided that I would be keeping it. He also said that he will be making updates to the code eventually. I'm *very* sorry for anyone who was affected by the masks for aewm++ and aewm++-goodies, but they have been lifted now. Sorry again. :)
Thanks david. Would it also be possible to cut lwm out of the zapping, since it would be nice to have that for lower end machines? I'm not going to berate you for it as was done above but I do think it would be nice to keep it since there isn't really a matching alternative unlike the others. I can understand reasons for removing most of the others what with being superseded and not compiling, but lwm can still hold it's own. Thanks
Removed from tree. (by desktop-wm, not treecleaners) pwm and wmi were removed, whilst other packages were left in the tree. lwm has been unmasked.
