On 06/30 06:55, Richard Rauch wrote:
> No, an X-using package should *not* require any WM, unless the windowmanager
> is really core to the functionality of the package (it is with KDE, and more
> or less with GNOME---though I point out that last I checked, GNOME could use
> twm).   KDE, of course, provides (and requires) its own, while GNOME just has
> a preference (not a requirement) for one external wm.

I agree that we shouldn't have a special wm package, and that none of
our X-using packages should require any wm.

However, to satisfy the nitpicker in me:
You can't use twm with GNOME, because it needs a NETWM compliant window
manager, and twm is, well, old (NETWM did not exist in twm's development
days).

As for KDE, it does not require kwm, and will work with most any NETWM
compliant window manager.  I'm not so sure that a lot of people _want_
to use something other than kwm with KDE, but I do know that, for
example, several openbox users run KDE and openbox together.

> Also, as noted, NetBSD includes one external window manager (twm) which is
> rather configurable and quite nice.  I thought that X (certainly XFree86)
> could always be counted on to provide twm.  Certainly, it should be free,
> so there's little reason to remove it unless a very strongly encouraged
> alternate is provided---in which case, there will still be a wm.

Good point. This satisfies the two conceivable cases. The first being a
standard workstation, where the user will be running his applications on
a local X server, and will require a window manager. (I do wonder,
though, how many people still use twm. Of course there would be no way
to replace it, and the holy wars that would ensue would only waste time)
The second case would be a server that only had X libs installed. It
would have no need for a window manager at all, and likely never have
one installed, be it through the X11 bins set or pkgsrc.

This would be a bit different if we had XFree86 packages in pkgsrc.