Re: [dev] [dwm] adding WM_WINDOW_ROLE rule

On 28 Jul 2010, at 2:24, Kris Maglione wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:55:14AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Kris Maglione
>> <maglione.k_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:09:22PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think the right thing to do would be to extend Rule and
>>>> applyrules()
>>>> with support for WM_WINDOW_ROLE. However I doubt that many client
>>>> make
>>>> actually use of WM_WINDOW_ROLE in a consistent way, which is why I
>>>> believe there is no great benefit in doing so -- or in other words,
>>>> yet another proof how hideous X has become ;)
>>>
>>> Has become? It was so from the start, and I'm really not certain
>>> it's
>>> possible for it to have become worse. There are certain depts of
>>> depravity
>>> in software that are impossible to surpass without resorting to
>>> Java.
>>
>> I think somehow X managed to surpass its own hideousness without
>> resorting to Java thanks to things like the use of XML by fontconfig,
>> and the auto*hell-ization of the whole X.org distribution.
>
> I have to admit that I don't make a strong distinction between XML
> and Java, but fontconfig really isn't X. It's just an external
> library like anything else.

Can you build or run the X server without fontconfig? I haven't tried
in years, but if I remember right the one time I tried, it wouldn't
work.

> And, as for autohell, well, bad as it is, I'm really not sure that
> it's worse than imake.

Indeed. I've not heard anything good about imake, and back when
autotools was considerably less mature than it is now I only ever came
across one or two packages outside X which preferred imake to
autotools.
Received on Sat Jul 31 2010 - 03:12:39 CEST