Re: [dwm] dwm-0.6

Sander van Dijk --> dwm (2006-08-02 20:25:55 +0200):
> On 8/2/06, Jukka Salmi <j+dwm_AT_2006.salmi.ch> wrote:
> >What about the attached patch? It would let make(1) take care of
> >regenerating config.h as needed.
>
> I believe that would break the idea of having a config.h that will
> survive a 'hg pull && hg update', which was the main intention of the
> renaming of config.h to config.default.h.

I don't know much about mercurial, but why should config.h not survive
pull & update? It doesn't exist in the remote repository:

$ hg status
[...]
? config.h
? config.jukka.h

> Currently (hg tip), make
> will copy config.default.mk to config.h _only_ when no config.h exists
> yet, allowing both an easy 'make clean install' from scratch and a
> custom config.h that survives a 'hg pull && hg update'. Unless I'm
> mistaken, your patch would bring back the situation where you'd have
> to manually set an envvar each time you want to rebuild dwm (or
> manually editing the Makefile each time you hg pull), which is exactly
> what the original change was trying to get rid of...

Hmm, I think the question is whether you keep your personal config
file as config.h or as e.g. config.sander.h. In the former case the
current Makefile is fine. In the latter case you probably want config.h
to be updated whenever you change config.sander.h, and that's what the
patch does. But you're right, you'd have to set CONFIG=config.sander.h;
why not use config.mk for this?

And if CONFIG is not set, config.default.h is used, thus current
behaviour is retained.

Cheers, Jukka

-- 
bashian roulette:
$ ((RANDOM%6)) || rm -rf ~