antiX questions re:removing select window managers and some file managers

[manyroads]

I am posting this first here, because I think I stand a much better chance of receiving useful, constructive assistance. (Implied message: I'm not so fortunate on the antiX forums). :lipsrsealed: It's probably me.

Anyway here's my inquiry. I have a desire (probably an unwise desire) to change the mix of wms and file manager tools on my antiX setup. I'd like to remove the following:
---fluxbox
---jwm
---herbstluft

I want to do the removal without borking the entire antiX setup- think surgical removal.

I want to add:
---openbox
---xfce

And I want to end up with the following on my setup working with the antiX tools:
---icewm
---openbox
---xfce (I realize this is a DE not a wm...)

The file managers I would like to remove are:
---rox
---spacefm

I would like to replace them with:
---PCmanFM
---Thunar

I am clear that what I'm trying to do likely breaks every rule imaginable. I am happy breaking rules, but I want to preserve the environment if possible. Here, I have to acknowledge that the saying "runs with scissors" is appropriate regarding my computer use.

Has anyone tried such a sacrilege and are there guides I can follow to improve my ability to achieve my objectives?

[spanizdogs]

Arch Wiki : very good for this kind of questions.

https://wiki.archlinux.org

[manyroads]

Arch Wiki : very good for this kind of questions.

https://wiki.archlinux.org

Actually the arch wiki won't help at all with antiX specific questions...

[skidoo]

Yes, coverage (attendance) at antixforums can be spotty.

To accomplish your goal, you will probably need to become intimately familiar with the underlying scripts used by the antiX "desktop-session" mechanism. This is the "plumbing", the under-the-hood stuffs ~~ aside from inline comments within the scripts and/or the associated configuration files, no end-user documentation is available. When plumbing-related questions arise, your best resource may be probably is the antixforum "Old Forum Archive" https://antixlinux.com/archive/ because... although bits-n-pieces have been added to the plumbing across years, the older plumbing hasn't changed much. If it ain't broke, don't fix it... and the person who contributed a given script might not still be available for interrogation to provide explanation of how the anklebone is connected to the shinbone...

sudo updatedb && locate desktop-session
Begin by peeking into the scripts here: /usr/local/lib/desktop-session
then widen your exploration to include other matches returned by that locate command.

It will be helpful for you to setup a bash command (command fragment) alias
cd /usr/local && grep -inr
then, each time you are tracking down an unfamiliar term, or all the places mentioning a term of interest, you can quickly
cf 'some phrase'

Specific to openbox, looks like antiX-Dave (or, kmathern?) had begun work toward including "Update Menus" support and whatnot...
(see: /lib/desktop-session/lib-desktop-session.sh)

I can only mention a couple general tips/guidelines:
In antiX runlevels 2-5, startx isn't called directly.
xinit is minimal. It calls SLiM login manager, which calls desktop-session... and follow the bouncing ball.

After installing a new desktop manager (er, windowmanager), you will need to edit /etc/slim.conf and add the name of the newly-added item (its startup commandstring + desired args) to the listed choices. Similarly, to remove any of the "F1 to select session" choices, you can just remove its name from the "sessions" line within slim.conf

Just?
As a starting point, I do suggest "just" (vs succumbing to the temptation to squeaky clean remove all files related to currently-unused wms//sessions). IIRC, by purging JWM and iceWM and fluxbox you'll only regain about 25MB disk space... and will wind up with logspam from the update-menus script and others (which are hardcoded to expect the files associated with the 3 preinstalled window managers are present).

"(auto)update-menus"
The task of adding support for parsing//injecting content into additional, proprietary, static menu files used by various window managers, represents a significant a curation timesink. Good luck with that...
...and your menu customizations//changes will (still) be ignored by "desktop environments", including Xfwm, which each do their own thang...

[Richard]

Just trial away and see what happens. :)
It's not your first rodeo. :)
Always interesting, even when not my cup of tea.

I use Xfce4, Thunar & DoubleCommander.
Waiting on antiX-19 to see how it goes.

[Richard]

Great tips from a man who knows the details.
Thanks, skidoo.

[figueroa]

A cleaner solution might be to start with the minimal iso and build up to what you want. That way you might be able to avoid a lot of residual cruft that was installed as dependencies in the full antiX. I'm curious as to why you choose Openbox. Do you want to be able to run Openbox by itself? XFCE works great with XFWM.

Regarding the WMs and file managers you would like to get rid of, they don't take up much storage. They are easy to purge. They don't have too many dependencies that were installed along with them. Purging rox-filer removes mountbox, and rox-filer is also a dependency of mountbox so you can have rox-filer without mountbox but not the other way around.

Added: What skidoo wrote while I was typing. Good advice.

[manyroads]

A cleaner solution might be to start with the minimal iso and build up to what you want. That way you might be able to avoid a lot of residual cruft that was installed as dependencies in the full antiX. I'm curious as to why you choose Openbox. Do you want to be able to run Openbox by itself? XFCE works great with XFWM.

Regarding the WMs and file managers you would like to get rid of, they don't take up much storage. They are easy to purge. They don't have too many dependencies that were installed along with them. Purging rox-filer removes mountbox, and rox-filer is also a dependency of mountbox so you can have rox-filer without mountbox but not the other way around.

Added: What skidoo wrote while I was typing. Good advice.

The reason for Openbox was/is simple, I want to learn it. Turns out of the wms I have tried I like OB & iceWM. For me, the others are just ok. All the rest really just has to do with keeping a completely systemd-free platform available for use. I'm interested in the Devuan effort... antiX and would love MX to stay systemd-optional.

All of the efforts really are learning experiences. I doubt seriously that I'll improve my wealth through these endeavors. :lipsrsealed:

I will share everything I learn that I deem potentially shareable/ useful. As always, no guarantees are expressed or implied.

[figueroa]

The reason for Openbox was/is simple, I want to learn it. Turns out of the wms I have tried I like OB & iceWM.

Good reason. Your onto something interesting.

[dreamer]

A cleaner solution might be to start with the minimal iso and build up to what you want. That way you might be able to avoid a lot of residual cruft that was installed as dependencies in the full antiX. I'm curious as to why you choose Openbox. Do you want to be able to run Openbox by itself? XFCE works great with XFWM.

Regarding the WMs and file managers you would like to get rid of, they don't take up much storage. They are easy to purge. They don't have too many dependencies that were installed along with them. Purging rox-filer removes mountbox, and rox-filer is also a dependency of mountbox so you can have rox-filer without mountbox but not the other way around.

Added: What skidoo wrote while I was typing. Good advice.

The reason for Openbox was/is simple, I want to learn it. Turns out of the wms I have tried I like OB & iceWM. For me, the others are just ok. All the rest really just has to do with keeping a completely systemd-free platform available for use. I'm interested in the Devuan effort... antiX and would love MX to stay systemd-optional.

All of the efforts really are learning experiences. I doubt seriously that I'll improve my wealth through these endeavors. :lipsrsealed:

I will share everything I learn that I deem potentially shareable/ useful. As always, no guarantees are expressed or implied.

Thanks for your efforts manyroads! Your efforts creating "antiXfce" are not in vain even if MX Linux stays sysvinit. I think you make it slightly harder for yourself by incorporating two sessions. Why not make an Openbox ISO and an Xfce ISO? That way there is less entanglement between the "DEs". Just a thought. You have at least another year to complete your work, because Debian Stretch isn't going anywhere. I usually have two DEs installed myself, but it can make the menu more confusing. I don't mind an ISO with two sessions or more, I just thought it would be more work.

I also hope MX Linux stays with sysvinit. I think it's important for Linux. But I understand if they don't want to fight the app ecosystem and focus on building a great distro. I think whatever they choose MX Linux will become slightly smaller so there is no good choice really. But smaller can also be better, because it's easier to target a more uniform group of users.