Re: [dwm] improve config.mk

From: Ricardo Martins <meqif_AT_swearing-ape.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:27:04 +0100

On 19:40 Thu 07 Sep , KIMURA Masaru / hiyuh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2006/9/7, Ricardo Martins <meqif_AT_swearing-ape.net>:
> >On 20:13 Wed 06 Sep, Ville Koskinen wrote:
> >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:04:10 +0200
> >> Sander van Dijk <a.h.vandijk_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 9/6/06, Cedric Krier <ced_AT_ced.homedns.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi, I'm working on an ebuild for dwm.
> >> > > (http://gentoo-sunrise.org/svn/reviewed/x11-wm/dwm/)
> >> > >
> >> > > It will be great if you can apply this patch on config.mk.
> >> > > It allows to specify compilation option from command line.
> >> >
> >> > Is that really useful? I can understand that people make packages for
> >> > binary distro's, but if you're going to build from source anyway I
> >> > don't really understand what this adds;
> >>
> >> Sssh. He's a Gentoo user. Don't upset him.
> >>
> >> Okay, sorry. Seriously, I don't quite understand how you can configure
> >> dwm with Portage. Do you make all the config.h defines as USE
> >> variables? Wouldn't that be *more* difficult than simply editing the
> >> source?
> >
> >I agree with you. It's a lot easier to configure dwm simply editing
> >config.h than using Portage. I even prefer using a few commands to
> >update dwm, it's only a matter of doing something like "cd ~/dwm; hg pull;
> >hg up -v; hg log|less; less config.arg.h; vim config.h; make clean; make".
>
> Well, I'm on Gentoo, too.
> But I cann't agree with you.
> As you know, other following posts by ced already mentioned, this patch
> doesn't take anything what you want to edit config.h for dwm features.
> And then, if this ebuild would use mercurial.eclass, it's obviously simpler
> what you did at the moment.
> # vim /etc/portage/package.use ; emerge x11-wm/dwm
> Of cource, your own patch can be use, if you have own local overlayed
> dwm ebuild.

I can't find where I said that one loses anything by using the ebuild
instead of building manually; I only stated that it was easier to
maintain a healthy config.h manually than through CÚdric's ebuild.

I disagree with the actual ebuild system, which makes using a
heavily-modded config.h a pain in the neck (I'm too lazy to edit a new
config.h to be similar to the one I use, when I can simply do a really
quick edit to my existing config.h).

> >That said, I'm also a Gentoo user. Yeah, I'm waiting for the "OMG RICER"
> >jokes. :)
>
> Personally, my definition of RICER is not only crazy optimizing guy.
> If it has consistencies like a policy, to optimize is worth to consider, IMHO.
> So, generally RICER which I meant is, "although it's own setting, not only
> who couldn't understand what the problem is, but also who couldn't solve it."
> It's simply annoying for me, and completely no constructiveness.

I was expecting the usual (friendly or otherwise) jokes about Gentoo
users being ricers, I was not calling ourselves ricers.

I think optimizations are overrated. The actual performance difference
between the various CFLAGS is, imho, too small to validate most things
other than "-O2 -march=whatever -pipe", and -march isn't that useful
either. I guess I'm an alien Gentoo'er.

But yes, some applications could benefit of some specific optimizations,
like mplayer and lame.

> >An ebuild for dwm would be either too complex, due to the number of
> >compile-time configuration options, or too simplistic, perhaps
> >defaulting to config.default.h. I don't think it's worth it, I reckon
> >most Gentoo+dwm users do something similar to what I do.
>
> Nah, my main Gentooism is central package management of Portage, IMHO.
> It gave us sweet consistency and simple interface to management.
> So, it's just do emerge, I already realized.

Portage is one of the main reasons I'm using Gentoo, too. It's easy to
use and allows me to customise whatever I have on my system, like
getting rid of arts. What's your point, most (if not all) Gentooers
love Portage and I'm no exception.
dwm is the only thing that is not managed by Portage. In the first few
versions of dwm (before the configuration options went into config.h and
we had to grep around), I used the dwm ebuild. But when dwm moved to the
actual system, I saw the ebuild was far too crude for _my_ needs. This can
change, but until then, I'm better off doing all this manually. Isn't
Linux (and Gentoo, specially) all about choice?

> Otherwise, I cann't deem you're Gentoo+dwm users, you're just dwm user.

What, are you taking my Gentoo badge? ;) Ok, I got it, I don't represent
the majority of Gentoo & dwm users.

> >I'm sorry if this sounds too negative or offensive, but that's not my
> >aim, I'm just (rudely) stating my opinion.
> Me too.
> But, your post doesn't fit my own Gentooism.
>
> All of non-Gentoo users:
> Sorry for off-topic post from a RICER.
> But, please donn't blame Gentoo packaging dwm...

No offence taken. Gentooism? What's this, a new religion? :)

Regards,

-- 
 Ricardo Martins  ><><  www.swearing-ape.net  ><><  GPG key: 3B818E27
Received on Thu Sep 07 2006 - 13:28:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 14:31:06 UTC