Re: [dwm] improve config.mk

Hi,

2006/9/7, Ricardo Martins <meqif_AT_swearing-ape.net>:
> 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".

Well, I'm on Gentoo, too.
But I cann't agree with you.
As you know, other following posts by ced already mentioned, this patch
doesn't take anything what you want to edit config.h for dwm features.
And then, if this ebuild would use mercurial.eclass, it's obviously simpler
what you did at the moment.
 # vim /etc/portage/package.use ; emerge x11-wm/dwm
Of cource, your own patch can be use, if you have own local overlayed
dwm ebuild.

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

Personally, my definition of RICER is not only crazy optimizing guy.
If it has consistencies like a policy, to optimize is worth to consider, IMHO.
So, generally RICER which I meant is, "although it's own setting, not only
who couldn't understand what the problem is, but also who couldn't solve it."
It's simply annoying for me, and completely no constructiveness.

> 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.

Nah, my main Gentooism is central package management of Portage, IMHO.
It gave us sweet consistency and simple interface to management.
So, it's just do emerge, I already realized.
Otherwise, I cann't deem you're Gentoo+dwm users, you're just dwm user.

> I'm sorry if this sounds too negative or offensive, but that's not my
> aim, I'm just (rudely) stating my opinion.
Me too.
But, your post doesn't fit my own Gentooism.

All of non-Gentoo users:
Sorry for off-topic post from a RICER.
But, please donn't blame Gentoo packaging dwm...

[SNIP]
Received on Thu Sep 07 2006 - 12:41:10 UTC