I filed a bugreport to the audacious bugzilla a while ago about a rendering bug. I got a reply that said that “this is because the FVWM maintainers refuse to properly implement NetWM”. I’m just curious why this isn’t implemented, I guess there are some reasons.
And once again, I’m only curious, I’m not trying to start a flame war on implementing vs. not implementing.
Might I suggest you pose this on the fvwm-workers mailing list (see fvwm.org) – I don’t think there’s anything wrong with FVWM’s NET_WM support at all, and it seems that Pitcock is more than reluctant to see reason to the point of being rude; I find his behaviour unacceptable.
Well, I am not a master of anything around here, but I can only think that he just doesn’t have the reason because an informed developer would speak with facts and bits of code, and not with allusions at how bad, evil and arrogant the fvwm people are… Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t like that kind of attitude.
He claims that fvwm refuses to comply with the freedesktop standard. However, freedesktop people don’t think the same, because they list fvwm as one of the compliant wm’s on their own web:
Maybe, only maybe, it could be more productive if both parts sit down and find the true problem. The fact that most wm’s work ok with audacious or xmms, don’t necessarily mean that audacious devs are right. Remember: a few centuries ago most people used to think that the people was flat, and it certainly is not. I am not stating that the problem is in audacious. I am just saying that it’s what it seems looking at the big picture.
I really think the Pitcock behavior is not acceptable, but maybe there’s something that I don’t know. In that case, he should also have provided links and proofs about all the claims he makes, about how bad fvwm devs are, and how compliant about net_wm they (the audacious devs) are.
If you are really interested, we should continue the discussion at the workers mailing list as Thomas Adam suggested in hist post above. That’s the official place that the fvwm developers use for this kind of thing. That would be more productive. Adding “workarounds” have never been the fvwm way. If it’s broken, then it must be fixed, and not worked around. And it must be fixed where the problem is. If the problem is in fvwm, then it should be fixed in fvwm. If the problem is not in fvwm, it should never be worked around in fvwm. If the application is net_wm compliant, and fvwm is net_wm compliant, then there shouldn’t be a problem. I really don’t know how compliant fvwm is in that regard, and any fvwm dev will give us a better insight about that.
Thanks for the info. I’ll make just one more quick question: looking at the ewmh.c file I find that there are some notes at the beginning about a few NET_WM* hints that needed to be implemented. I was wondering if that notes are still up to date (not that it’s related to this topic, I just feel curious in case you have some info about that).
It means I see no reason why the audacious devs are bitching, which leads me to conclude that the problem isn’t with any of the NET_WM* at all but something else. I would advise posting to the fvwm-workers mailing list, referencing the bug report in question to see if anyone there has any ideas, although I suspect not – the problem still lies in audacious being buggy. Given Pitcock’s attitude I refuse to even look at the source for audacious to suggest what might be wrong.
The problem is that we don’t know what needs to be solved
Those posts above by me and Thomas was just me trying to get some info about the completeness about the net_wm stuff in fvwm, slightly off-topic here, and were not related to the problem.
As Thomas Adam suggest, I would still post on the email@example.com mailing list, because the developers reside there. I am not an fvwm developers, and I have only looked at small pieces of the fvwm source code. I have never read anything about the problems with xmms (which is surely the same thing you are seeing in audacious) because I am relatively new as fvwm user. But this problem is not new, and the devs in the list surely knows what the problem is.
I really never bothered… There are way too much players for me to bother about getting xmms or audacious running.