Re: [dev] Re: freetype2/fc pain

From: Quentin Rameau <quinq_AT_fifth.space>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 13:58:46 +0200

Hello Anselm,

> I did investigate the options and made up my mind. Here is my verdict:
>
> The idea behind libsl has to be improved in code and I will work on
> this. The drw.h API is not strictly enough defined and both dwm and
> dmenu access certain aspects of drw.h that they shouldn't, which makes
> it currently impossible to cleanly implement either simple plain X11
> support or let the Xft/fc abomination survive in one possible
> direction or to introduce a different implementation like cairo-based.

Maybe drw is not needed at all and could be put back into main code.

> I will reassess if the xlib dependent part in dwm can be separated
> further as well, to allow a more agnostic WM core.

Hum, this was tried for st, and imo it didn't bring much benefit, only
a half-separation of code into files, but not totally separated.

> I know that I did raise the multihead question a couple of times in
> the past, and mostly the picture I gathered was 50/50 -- one half uses
> Xinerama setups, the other doesn't. Thus my old idea of arranging the
> code in a different way might be an answer, which would allow building
> dwm single-headed (without Screen) and multi-headed (witch Screen
> derived from Xinerama).

I use Xinerama, but I can live with it being stripped off into the
patches section.
Would it really bring much more simplicity?

> I think this whole effort will lead to 6.2 rather than some fork. But
> I want it be easier to built a clean dwm without the cruft in setups
> where most of the cruft is (fortunately still) absent.

Yes, no need for a fork, I think we all agree on the font madness and
will find common choices
Received on Sun Sep 23 2018 - 13:58:46 CEST