Re: [dwm] improve config.mk

From: Ricardo Martins <meqif_AT_swearing-ape.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 15:45:14 +0100

On 22:39 Thu 07 Sep , KIMURA Masaru / hiyuh wrote:
> 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.
>

Sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean.

In any case, check the conversation I had here in the list with CÚdric
about the ebuild. He's doing the best he can with a system that has no
easy way around this, so he had use a workaround. I suggested that it'd
nice if, in case the emerge fails, portage presented a diff between the
packaged config.h and savedconfig (the custom config.h being used),
which would help diagnosing where did the errors come from.

So, there's a change for both points of view, both for the user (who has
access to new features, if applicable) and for the sysadmin (who saw if
there were any changes and if so, what). Is this what you meant?

> >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.
>

Again, I do not get exactly what you mean.

I don't think editing an ebuild is the same as editing the source. What
I said before is that the way I thought CÚdric's ebuild was doing things forced
one to always rewrite the same customisations over and over. It looks
like it isn't so. However, I do not agree that this patch should be
merged with the main code/mainline/HEAD/whatever, since this is
Gentoo-specific. It's Anselm's call, anyway, not mine.

> >> >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.
>

Correct if I'm wrong, but these bugs aren't common in stable compilers.
Developing compilers are another matter, and debugging those is a task
that can be done in any distro.

Are you calling common flags like a simple "-O2" chicken flags? Anything that
doesn't compile with mad flags is buggy? Well, use whatever floats your boat,
I prefer stable flags until someone gives me solid proof that another
combination of flags gives more performance and no stability problems.

Now, if you're talking about testing various sane cflags, that could
uncover some bugs, right. Still, that's no reason for common users to use
mad flags all the time just for the sake of doing it, when one isn't doing
it on purpose to find those nasty bugs.

> >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.
>

Yeah, those guys with a CFLAGS line longer than my arm that fill bug
reports or go cry in the forum are living anedoctes. Some even remove
those filters in the ebuilds, so they can use their flags. I knew I've
heard/read your name somewhere: in some ebuilds changelogs. Thanks for
those gcc 4.1 fixes, btw.

> >> >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.
>

One exception kills system consistency? Heh, that's nice but detached
from reality. There are exceptions everywhere, in everything. It's a
goal that sould be pursued anyway, as you say.

My usage is just fine, because dwm is confined to its own directory, I
don't even use make install to force it being all (hg tip source +
binary ) in one dir. AFAIK, Portage provides no easy way to see the
output of hg log, nor peacefully edit a file which is going to be used.
If emerge dwm would show me the log of changes between the installed
revision and the actual, allow me to edit config.h and only then proceed
to compiling and installing, believe me when I say I would use Portage
for this too. Unfortunately, it doesn't, afaik.

> >> 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. :)
>

Thanks for giving it back. :P Each to his own, they say.

> >> >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]
>

Oh, you meant that. Sorry, I'm so used to zealots everywhere that
sometimes a get too excited.

Hey, this is the true joy of the internet: exchanging ideas and
opinions, possibly contributing for a better world. We need no flames.

This conversation has been great for showing me another point of view on
this subject. Thanks for you contribution.

Regards,

-- 
 Ricardo Martins  ><><  www.swearing-ape.net  ><><  GPG key: 3B818E27
Received on Thu Sep 07 2006 - 16:45:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 14:31:08 UTC