Re: [dwm] improve config.mk

From: KIMURA Masaru / hiyuh <hiyuh.root_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 22:39:26 +0900

Hi,

2006/9/7, Ricardo Martins <meqif_AT_swearing-ape.net>:
> 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.
>
Yes, it looks like nothing change as view points of system users.
Then, it looks like nothing change as view point of system admins?
Not only I'm user of my system, but also I'll be admin of my system.

> 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).
>
To edit ebuild is not to edit source stuff?
Well, you would say no?
I say yes, though.

> > >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.
>
Right, if we were calling ourselves ricers, we cann't fix some bugs of
compiler's
optimization functionalities.
And, if it has so buggy functionalities, I would drop it as "debuging".
OTOH, I wouldn't hide it by using chicken CFLAGS, beacuse I prefer to learn
some binary level knowledges (dunno, about what Web 2.0 is :P), mainly to fun
{V,Verilog }HDL or something customized FPGA thingys.

> 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.
>
Right, if it's already designed to optimize specific arch in high
level languages,
sane arch-depend compile flags make sane executable binary with SIMD or so.
But, global compilation flags wouldn't be at the moment, beacause all ebuild
filtering flags functionalities are not enough to ready to regulate dumb ricers.
So, I fix it sometimes.

> > >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?
>
So, what I really ment is "system consistency decays from only exception one".
But yes, no one have no exceptions, I guess.
However, it's just one of my ideals, and it doesn't affect your usage of Gentoo.
Duh, your Gentoo is yours, my Gentoo is mine.
Thus, your usage is OK if you would manage it without Portage.
It means you really understand what you do, unlike annoying ricers.

> > 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.
>
OK, I'm apologize for your Gentoo badge.
And, if you were deemed just dwm user by silly me, your Gentoo always
be with you.
And it shines your own way, IMHO. :)

> > >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? :)
>
Hmm, my english vocabulary has a bit of breakages sometimes like eng`r'ish.
Well, you can "sed" my previous post with "s:Gentooism:reason of I use Gentoo:",
I thought.
And I agree with you, some flame may waste our time.
But some agreements is minute amounts of flame, IMHO.

Thank you for replaying my post with your opnion. :)
[SNIP]
Received on Thu Sep 07 2006 - 15:39:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 14:31:07 UTC