Re: [dwm] improve config.mk

On 06/09/06 20:44 +0100, Ricardo Martins wrote:
> 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.
>

So if you look at the ebuild, you will see that you can setup a
config.h.
The patch allow just to specify some compilation option.

Cédric