Re: [dev] pertag and bstack patches to dwm incompatible

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Andrew Antle <andrew.antle_AT_gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Donald Allen <donaldcallen_AT_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > dwm-5.8.2: if you attempt to apply both the pertag and bstack patches to
> > dwm, the resulting code will not compile. The reason is that the
> definition
> > of the monitor struct is moved after the include of config.h in dwm.c by
> > the pertag patch. The bstack patch includes the bstack and bstackhoriz
> > functions (which reference the monitor struct) in config.h. The code
> won't
> > compile, because those references to the monitor struct are now forward
> > references.
> > I have fixed this by inserting the bstack and bstackhoriz functions
> directly
> > into dwm.c, just after the analogous tile function. Function prototypes
> for
> > bstack and bstackhoriz are also needed in the /* Function declarations */
> > section. For the community, this could easily be fixed by generating a
> .diff
> > to dwm.c for the bstack patch, rather than including the code in
> config.h.
> > I also note that simply attempting to apply the bstack patch fails (I did
> > this with vanilla 5.8.2 -- no pertag patch applied):
> > patch -p1 < dwm-5.8.2-bstack.diff
> > patching file bstack.c
> > patching file bstackhoriz.c
> > patching file config.def.h
> > Hunk #1 succeeded at 29 with fuzz 1.
> > Hunk #2 FAILED at 36.
> > 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file config.def.h.rej
> > It appears that whoever updated this patch for 5.8.2 didn't bother to
> test
> > whether it actually worked, which is disappointing. I hand-edited the
> lines
> > that patch refused to insert.
> > /Don
> >
>
> Why don't you fix these patches and submit them?
>

I actually offered to do this in a private message to Anselm last December.
He didn't respond. He's always been very good about responding to my emails
(and in a very gentlemanly way, I might add), so I think this one just fell
through a crack (and I'd be lying if I claimed I'd never done this myself).
That I sent it on the day before Xmas probably didn't help. In that message
I mentioned that I wasn't sure what the protocol was for fixing the patches
of others (e.g., suppose I fix a problem in a way that is not acceptable to
the original author -- what then?). I don't want to take the time to do this
if it won't be used.

/Don

> --
> Andrew Antle
> <andrew dot antle at gmail dot com>
>
>
Received on Wed Jul 07 2010 - 18:55:03 CEST