Re: [dwm] improve config.mk

On 20:13 Wed 06 Sep, Ville Koskinen wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:04:10 +0200
> Sander van Dijk <a.h.vandijk_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9/6/06, Cedric Krier <ced_AT_ced.homedns.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, I'm working on an ebuild for dwm.
> > > (http://gentoo-sunrise.org/svn/reviewed/x11-wm/dwm/)
> > >
> > > It will be great if you can apply this patch on config.mk.
> > > It allows to specify compilation option from command line.
> >
> > Is that really useful? I can understand that people make packages for
> > binary distro's, but if you're going to build from source anyway I
> > don't really understand what this adds;
>
> Sssh. He's a Gentoo user. Don't upset him.
>
> Okay, sorry. Seriously, I don't quite understand how you can configure
> dwm with Portage. Do you make all the config.h defines as USE
> variables? Wouldn't that be *more* difficult than simply editing the
> source?

I agree with you. It's a lot easier to configure dwm simply editing
config.h than using Portage. I even prefer using a few commands to
update dwm, it's only a matter of doing something like "cd ~/dwm; hg pull;
hg up -v; hg log|less; less config.arg.h; vim config.h; make clean; make".

That said, I'm also a Gentoo user. Yeah, I'm waiting for the "OMG RICER"
jokes. :)

An ebuild for dwm would be either too complex, due to the number of
compile-time configuration options, or too simplistic, perhaps
defaulting to config.default.h. I don't think it's worth it, I reckon
most Gentoo+dwm users do something similar to what I do.

I'm sorry if this sounds too negative or offensive, but that's not my
aim, I'm just (rudely) stating my opinion.

Regards,

-- 
 Ricardo Martins  ><><  www.swearing-ape.net  ><><  GPG key: 3B818E27