Re: LXQt-1.0.0 Window Manager?

["David H. Gutteridge" <david%gutteridge.ca@localhost>]

On Sun, 2021-11-07 at 16:28 +0000, pin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've started the update of LXQt to the newly released 1.0.0
> As of LXQt-0.17.0 the DE claims to be window manager independent and
> no longer
> offers a configuration file for openbox.
> 
> I've asked upstream what their thought are and answer follows,
> 
> "LXQt has removed all traces of treating an X11 window manager or
> compositor in
> special ways. All DE-agnostic X11 WMs can be used with LXQt and
> distros are
> free to choose one as their default (Openbox, xfwm4, KWin,...).
> Openbox isn't developed anymore, although it's still usable."
> 
> Regarding obconf-qt, they say,
> "The code hasn't changed since 0.15.0. IMHO, its repository can be
> archived."
> 
> It will take me a couple of days to build and update the whole DE, as
> I have
> limited time right now. At best, I might be ready to start merging the
> update
> on Monday evening but, most probabably not.
> 
> How would we like to address the LXQt meta-package regading the choice
> of
> window manager?
> What about the configuration files?
> 
> My suggestion is to keep both xfwm4 and openbox as a choice in the
> meta-package
> but, drop and remove obconf-qt from pkgsrc.
> Alternative, we could shift to xfwm4 only as Siduction (Debian Sid)
> has done.
> Or, we could simply go with the upstream idea and provide no wm.
> Although, this
> could scare users that install a DE with no window manager.
> 
> Please let me know what you think.

I don't think we can reasonably provide a meta package with no window
manager, as that would violate the POLA. Typically DEs are customized
somewhat by downstream packagers and, here, the upstream seems to be
implying we should do so.

The other question -- assuming Openbox is left as our default -- is how
does this change the UX if we don't provide an LXQt-specific config file
as used to be done? When last I tested LXQt with xfwm4 as the WM, it
worked fine, but we'd want to verify that again (I can do that as I have
time).

I don't have a strong opinion about obconf-qt. I've never used it, and
if the upstream thinks it should be dropped, sure, that makes sense.

Regards,

Dave