Or, we could add that one line to dwm. Even if that would mean fixing the bug in the wrong place, the bug would still be fixed rather than being ignored in the lxdm tracker.
Lukas Fleischer <suckless_AT_cryptocrack.de> wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 02:11:26PM +0300, FRIGN wrote:
>> Am 8/31/13 1:37 PM, schrieb Markus Teich:
>> >I don't think this is a valid argumentation, since you could also
>turn it
>> >around and say:
>> >As lxdm works with most other window managers, it is the
>dwm-developers'
>> >job.
>> >
>> >Therefore i think it should be documented somewhere, who's job it is
>to
>> >focus the root window.
>> >
>> >--Markus
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It's the same question Mauro raised and he got a famous answer from
>> Linus[1] (Don't force me to bring up his words here again).
>>
>> It's a simple matter: What are you aiming your development at? Linux
>> Kernel developers are very keen on not breaking the userspace.
>> It's a bottom-up-system: Not the userspace adapts to quirks, the
>> Kernel space makes sure it provides a consistent, standardized
>> interface to run applications which have been built to comply with
>> those standards.
>> [...]
>
>I partially agree. As I said before the first question to ask ourselves
>is: Is there some specification (or any API documentation or whatever)
>that says whether to root window needs to be focussed on startup (if
>there are no other clients)?
>
>If there is, it clearly is a bug in either LXDM or dwm and should be
>fixed in the right place.
>
>If there isn't, it is probably better to fix this in LXDM since it's a
>good idea to provide a consistent interface and not do the very same
>setup in every window manager. However, note that the LXDM developers
>might argue that focussing stuff is the window managers' job and none
>of
>their business. This is a bit different than the discussion you linked.
>It is not a regression, not a change in behavior, not only a question
>of
>consistency -- it is about responsibility. Who is responsible for
>setting an initial focus? And I don't think there's a clear answer to
>that although I must confess that I'm not familiar with X and related
>things at all.
>
>Since it is only a one-line fix in dwm and this might end up in a lot
>of
>discussion, I personally think it is not worth the hassle. However, if
>someone feels strongly about it, feel free to do some research and
>start
>a discussion on that.
--
Received on Sun Sep 01 2013 - 16:08:29 CEST