On 17 November 2012 18:58, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:58:22 +0100 Anselm R Garbe <garb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I’m all for draw.{h,c}. Otherwise the complexity of dependency handling > will need to be added to all of the packages using libdraw. There might > be a tendency of differences in the implementation, but that’s easy to > solve, if the draw.{h,c} stays simple. That’s simpler than having the > hassle to download some more packages, install them at the right place > and go on with building.
Yes, that's my preference as well. >> (ii) Another aspect on the dwm roadmap is a reimplementation of the >> current multi-screen handling. It still contains some weird bugs in >> special setups with same screen sizes. Those don't seem to be easily >> fixable with the current updategeom() handling. > > But please keep the same behaviour as dwm has now. Reducing this to this > idea of only starting applications on one screen is not userfriendly and > creates more hassle than the »weird bugs« create. Most of these bugs are > just there because of weird applications using weird modes in weird cas‐ > es of weird bloated complexity. I’m rather for adapting the applications > having the problems. The changes I plan involves a different behaviour when screens are added/removed/resized while dwm is running. >> -> is there anyone who uses the mouse functionality of the dwm bar >> right now? Could you live without it? > > No, I am the leader of the suckless touch project and removing this will > require me to fork dwm, which only creates problems. The statusbar works > as it is and we already discussed what bloat some interface for a sta‐ > tusbar would add. What is the purpose of the suckless touch project? Who is using this? Are you using onscreen keyboards to hack commands into your terminal? > Some good nice touch features will be added here, when multitouch is > common and usable in X11. Then the statusbar can serve as the path to > suckless touching. To me this touching stuff s not really the typical suckless focus group imho. >> I barely use the mouse for the dwm bar and would be in favour for >> removing the bar altogether from dwm. Instead I would output the >> current dwm state to stdout which could be used by a different program >> like sbar for input. But I wouldn't add an interface to dwm to change >> the tags through X props or some other command interface (like stdin >> processing) to allow other programs to amend the dwm tags. Good old >> key commands would be enough for me. > > This is replacing a worker with a disabled person. It would simplify dwm quite significantly. > What’s »Android« in the »Android core«? The Linux kernel running some That's just the kernel + bionic and some userland. No dalvik and the folks. Best regards, Anselm