FvwmButtons: (150x1, Icon "icons/xterm.png")....??

This is what is said in the man pages:

In this example:
FvwmButtons: (150x1, Icon “icons/xterm.png”)

it would mean that my button is 150x(normal button) wide and 1x(normal button) high.

But what is this normal button???

No matter what I type the buttons hight is always the same hight as the FvwmButtons bar. Actually if I type 150x150 the width gets smaller!!

Who writes these man pages?

This is in relation to the BoxSize attribute of FvwmButtons. The default is dumb which means that the overall size of the FvwmButtons instance stays the same, and as more buttons are created inside it, these buttons will grow and shrink to accommodate all of them.

The following URL might be of interest to you:

forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-16 … ttons.html

Clever people than I. The Fvwm developers, and the authors of the respective Modules, where applicable. Why do you ask? Usually it tells you at the bottom of each man page.

– Thomas Adam

It is defined by the
*FvwmButtons: ButtonGeometry

With ButtonGeometry you can define both the location of FvwmButtons instance, and size of a “button” inside that instance.

FvwmButtons: ButtonGeometry 80x80-0+0
FvwmButtons: (3x2, Swallow “FvwmDada” “Module FvwmDada”)
Would make a 3
80 x 2
80 sized button, with FvwmDada inside.
Also the FvwmButtons instance would be located at the right upper corner on your screen (-0+0).

Maybe that would be an excellent point to put in the man pages where the explanation of width and height times the “maybe-you-will-find-out-be-random” normalbutton is.

Who checks these manpages before they get “published”? Is it possible for anyone to make contributions, because it seems that they have not been read through before being posted.

Actually, everything said to you is in the FvwmButtons man page. It just might not be very clear to yourself what the overall intention is, that’s all. It’s one of the side-effects of writing documentation to appeal to the masses. Invariably there’ll be a small minority who drown in syntax.

I did laugh at your suggestion. Yes, the man pages are checked. Yes, they do on occasion contain mistakes. But not on this occasion. I know the man pages are cumbersome at times, but if you read it carefully, and try things out, then a lot of the time, it makes sense.

From what I can tell of your posts so far, I don’t think it’s the man pages that are at all at fault, but rather you are. FVWM is not easy, and as hard as you’re trying, it seems as though you’re drowning at the same time. You seem to be asking so many different questions before you have well and truely found the answer to the one you were originally looking for.

To date, there has been almost 100 messages posted from you to this forum. Great. Except, a lot of them really are trivial. They’re things you could have found out for yourself, if only you had tried it for yourself. That is, by trial and error, and more easily, by looking at other people’s configuration files. We have a huge section dedicated to them – and over the month’s, they’ve been quite useful to a lot of people.

By all means, keep trying. But your accusations are unfounded in this instance.

– Thomas Adam

Heheh, I know how frustrating it can be sometimes :laughing: (Just wait until you get to the shell-quoting stuff with PipeRead)
But after you start trying things out and get something to work and re-read the man-page, you may find yourself slapping yourself in the forehead shouting “doh!”. :smiley:

Meaning the information usually is there, but it is in such, umm… “general” -level, that it can be hard to understand.

I think that because fvwm is “the programmers windowmanager”, the prerequisites for user knowledge and manualpages and such are a bit on higher level than… well, to be honest, they aren’t much different level than, say, zsh. But surely any *nix stuff is on different level than, say, MS Windows.

Now I have made:
*FvwmDock: Geometry 1400x24+0-0
*FvwmDock: ButtonGeometry 80x80
*FvwmDock: (5x8, Frame 1)

But If I change ButtonGeometry to:
*FvwmDock: ButtonGeometry 1x24

Nothing happens! The button is still the same size!

Leave out the
*FvwmButtons: Geometry

Then it appears in the top instead

*FvwmButtons: ButtonGeometry 80x80-100+300
or whatever you wish. Standard X -geometry specifications apply.

I’m getting the feeling I’m swallowing a bait… I hope that is not the case.

I think you’re talking about two separate issues…:

*FB: Geometry XxY+A-B

is akin to “Module FvwmButtons FB -geometry fooxfoo+foo-foo” – it just sets the size and location of the FvwmButtons on screen.

*FB: ButtonsGeometry XxY+A-B

As you said, is the same as “Geometry”, excepting that the geometry specifies a single instance of a button. But the dimensions for that button will be ever so slightly less than what one would normally calculate for it, given certain rendering issues with buttons in general. You have to be careful if you use both Geometry and ButtonsGeometry – it’s possible to do so of course, but you’ll find that Geometry will often take over any other setting beforehand.

– Thomas Adam

Thomas, thanks for clearing that out. I have always used just the ButtonGeometry -option, and left out the Geometry option.
I had the assumption you could use one, but not the other at same time.
Although I feel it is simpler to use just ButtonGeometry option, as you can define it’s location with it, too.

Just to mention, I didn’t mean that as swallowing a bait :wink:
(looking at number of posts to date…)

PS. Just for the record, “dumb” is the default, not smart or fixed for boxsize in FvwmButtons, atleast according to my ‘man FvwmButtons’.

:slight_smile: I call that TMR – “Thomas’s Memory Relapse.” Happens more often than I’d like. Fixed, in the above. Ta.

– Thomas Adam