On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Michael Pederson wrote:

> >> # That's just my preference. Would it be appropriate to submit a pr to
> >> # update the 1.6 package? Would "afterstep-current" fly?
> 
> An update is certainly tempting, and I have some interest in an
> "afterstep-current" package.

The thing is, the updates are coming thick and fast. It's up to
1.7.118 now... wait, let me check ... 1.7.119. On the other hand, the
updates to the package promise to be trivial, now that all the *BSD
patches are incorporated into the main line. (Thanks to Ethan
Fischer.) The beauty of it is, for most updates you only have add a
line (or two) to the package Makefile to download a small distribution
patch (or two).

My feeling is that more NetBSD people should have this on their
screens, if for no other reason than to keep it from getting broken
again for bsd'ers. I've already made a package to help me track the
changes--I'm just looking for a committer.

The other question is, is anyone wedded to 1.6.10? Updating outright
would break ascp-1.0.2. There is a development version of ascp, but
it's too early for that to possibly track the new, improved
configuration options.

> >> Does anyone else eventually run out of colours on an 8bpp frame buffer?
> >> That was one of the points that sold me on WindowMaker vs. AfterStep.
> >
> >I can't answer that. I use 16bpp on all machines. fwiw, that one
> >hasn't come up on the mailing list in the last few weeks I've been
> >following it.
> 
> I currently have 8bpp on the sparc around here, but I haven't really
> noticed any problems.  On the other hand, I haven't got AfterStep
> selected at the moment.

I think I understand the question now. Afterstep-1.6.4 cut the icon
colors down to 10 in most of the "looks" files, and especially the
default. It's all perfectly perfectly user configurable, but if you
were to casually choose one of the supplied looks that allocates 128
colors to the icons, I can see where you would have problems on an
8bpp display!