Excerpts from Kurt H Maier's message of Tue Oct 19 17:42:34 +0200 2010:
> Relying on a package manager for dwm does not make any sense at all to
> begin with. It says this on the project homepage. Please hold
> packaging discussions on the respective distro packagers' lists, since
> it has nothing to do with the software itself.
Using a package manager makes it easier to work around broken software (e.g.
gdm). Even though gdm conflicts with dwm's philosophy, if people want to use
it so badly, there is no point in making it harder for them.
Maybe the script could check for the contents of ~/.dwm if it just contains
config.h or dwm.c too, and leave it all to the user if so.
I propose this, because it seems to be the sanest way to integrate dwm with a
binary package manager, allowing each user to have their own dwm which is
started by gdm if it exists. A binary package *is* nice to check the defaults
out. This is IMO a general discussion and includes all distributions willing to
provide a binary package. If the distribution patches dwm's behaviour like
this, they should also edit the manpage internally and inform about it.
By the way, someone over here said they were maintaining the debian package.
Can you explain what dwm.default and dwm.web is for? They all seem to have the
same behaviour. (possibly offlist, because that's not really suckless related)
Received on Tue Oct 19 2010 - 20:07:54 CEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Oct 19 2010 - 20:12:02 CEST