Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)
On 04/06/2012 07:41 AM, Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: Good Friday, Thank you Anselm for explaining the issue. From my point of view there is no other way of implementing a proper systray for dwm as long as it contains the bars and has no interface. Why don't we drop the bars and keybindings and let separate programs handle it. There are also other patches like Xft that show that there is a need for choice and extension. Building everything into dwm is not a good idea, agreed. So let's create a proper interface for dwm that other programs can use. I remember this being discussed before on this list. The conclusion was that separating the dwm bar would result in more code and complexity than just leaving it embedded as is. I personaly do not want systray or anything similar to be part of dwm. Even though I use anthy and use two different keyboard layouts (en, cs, jp) I don't really need anything to tell me what layout I use. I just remember. Other than that, I don't see any meaningful use for systray. I am using dwm few years now and this is first time I even thought about systray at all. And the little area of dwm bar for status -- yes, I use that.. while true do xsetroot -name "$(date)" sleep 10 done & I guess I would gravely miss this feature. But I could bear status area being removed. Probably, I would just look at my wristwatches instead.
[dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)
Good Friday, Thank you Anselm for explaining the issue. From my point of view there is no other way of implementing a proper systray for dwm as long as it contains the bars and has no interface. Why don't we drop the bars and keybindings and let separate programs handle it. There are also other patches like Xft that show that there is a need for choice and extension. Building everything into dwm is not a good idea, agreed. So let's create a proper interface for dwm that other programs can use. Jan Christoph On Thu 05-04-2012 19:31 +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > On 4 April 2012 22:29, Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: > > What needs to be done to get the systray patch upstream into dwm? Is there > > any chance of getting it upstream or is it a total no go? > > It is a total no go. It is even questionable that dwm contains a > status text area. There are tools like dzen for this instead. > > I think it is very fair for those who need this functionality to have > it available as a patch. > > Cheers, > Anselm > pgpwXXhTEWEx2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
>> > not necessary and should not be added to mainline. >> if you don't mind my asking, explain why? > > For every task there are good tools which do not require a tray > (e.g. network manager: netcfg). > I use the xinitrc to display all system information I require. > > It is a little hard to argue why you don't need a tray if you don't > understand why it would be useful in the first place. > > The only time I ever thought a tray would be nice was when skype > minimized once, but that is more of a design flaw in skype. thank you for sharing your thoughts. personally, systray is a (maybe, suboptimal) solution to see input method's status like uim for me. just my two cents.
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On 5 April 2012 20:42, Micheal Smith wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 08:40:55PM +0200, Arian Kuschki wrote: > > On 5 April 2012 19:18, Micheal Smith wrote: > > > > > Just updated the patch to apply cleanly with 6.0. Hope that helps. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Micheal > > > > > > > Thanks for this, unfortunately it still does not apply for me. Actually I > > think I lost interest in this patch already, it feels too complex. I > don't > > want to make this dance everytime there is a new dwm version. But just > out > > of interest, does the following work for you? > > > > mkdir test > > cd test > > wget http://dl.suckless.org/dwm/dwm-6.0.tar.gz > > tar xf dwm-6.0.tar.gz > > cd dwm-6.0/ > > wget http://dwm.suckless.org/patches/dwm-6.0-systray.diff > > patch -p1 < dwm-6.0-systray.diff > > It does indeed work for me (copy / pasted your process with no errors). > The > patch doesn't seem overly complicated to me. I think originally the author > may have simply created a patch of an already patched version. > > Ok, I am stupid. It works now, thanks for your help Michael.
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 08:40:55PM +0200, Arian Kuschki wrote: > On 5 April 2012 19:18, Micheal Smith wrote: > > > Just updated the patch to apply cleanly with 6.0. Hope that helps. > > > > Thanks, > > Micheal > > > > Thanks for this, unfortunately it still does not apply for me. Actually I > think I lost interest in this patch already, it feels too complex. I don't > want to make this dance everytime there is a new dwm version. But just out > of interest, does the following work for you? > > mkdir test > cd test > wget http://dl.suckless.org/dwm/dwm-6.0.tar.gz > tar xf dwm-6.0.tar.gz > cd dwm-6.0/ > wget http://dwm.suckless.org/patches/dwm-6.0-systray.diff > patch -p1 < dwm-6.0-systray.diff It does indeed work for me (copy / pasted your process with no errors). The patch doesn't seem overly complicated to me. I think originally the author may have simply created a patch of an already patched version.
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On 5 April 2012 19:18, Micheal Smith wrote: > Just updated the patch to apply cleanly with 6.0. Hope that helps. > > Thanks, > Micheal > Thanks for this, unfortunately it still does not apply for me. Actually I think I lost interest in this patch already, it feels too complex. I don't want to make this dance everytime there is a new dwm version. But just out of interest, does the following work for you? mkdir test cd test wget http://dl.suckless.org/dwm/dwm-6.0.tar.gz tar xf dwm-6.0.tar.gz cd dwm-6.0/ wget http://dwm.suckless.org/patches/dwm-6.0-systray.diff patch -p1 < dwm-6.0-systray.diff
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On 5 April 2012 13:31, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > On 4 April 2012 22:29, Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: >> What needs to be done to get the systray patch upstream into dwm? Is there >> any chance of getting it upstream or is it a total no go? > > It is a total no go. It is even questionable that dwm contains a > status text area. There are tools like dzen for this instead. > > I think it is very fair for those who need this functionality to have > it available as a patch. > > Cheers, > Anselm > I concur. Just because dwm provides a small panel doesn't mean it should work like other panels. Would openbox have a built in system tray? would kwin have a system tray? no. these are things implemented by different applications. Calvin
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On 4 April 2012 22:29, Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: > What needs to be done to get the systray patch upstream into dwm? Is there > any chance of getting it upstream or is it a total no go? It is a total no go. It is even questionable that dwm contains a status text area. There are tools like dzen for this instead. I think it is very fair for those who need this functionality to have it available as a patch. Cheers, Anselm
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:29:27PM +0200, Arian Kuschki wrote: > On 4 April 2012 22:29, Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: > > > ** > > Hi, > > > > What needs to be done to get the systray patch upstream into dwm? Is there > > any chance of getting it upstream or is it a total no go? > > > > The patch proved to be stable and I continued to refine it over last week. > > Please let me know in case you discover any issues. > > > > Jan Christoph > > > > This message was sent using Zarafa WebApp. > > > > The patch does not apply to dwm-6.0 cleanly, could you update it to 6.0 or > tip? I for one am tired of running a standalone tray just to be able to use > network-manager and am grateful for this. > > Cheers, > Arian Just updated the patch to apply cleanly with 6.0. Hope that helps. Thanks, Micheal
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 10:48:57AM -0400, Manolo Martínez wrote: > > (I don't use systrays, but still:) How so? If you have, say, six windows per > tag quick access might be useful. One can have a use policy that avoids this, > but such use policies are not enforced by a tiling interface. > If you need quick access to a specific window, you give it its own tag. Or you tag all the windows you'd normally cram into a system tray. Then you have the full power of the window manager to access them, instead of having to mouse into some ridiculously tiny picture on the corner of the screen. Tags are not workspaces. They can be dynamically assigned. I suspect there are two reasons people use system tray garbage with dwm: 1) They are not using dwm properly. These are the sorts of people who think pertag patches are a good idea. 2) They are using some piece of software designed with only that bad workflow in mind, and don't realize they don't need one. Skype, for instance, works fine without a system tray icon.
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 10:48:57 -0400, Manolo MartÃnez wrote: > On 04/05/12 at 10:44am, Kurt H Maier wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:24:20AM -0600, Jeremy Jackins wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:12 AM, KIMURA Masaru > > > wrote: > > > >> however in my opinion a system tray is > > > >> not necessary and should not be added to mainline. > > > > > > > > if you don't mind my asking, explain why? > > > > just curious. > > > > > > > > > > Necessity needs justification, not the other way around. > > > > > > > This is correct, but in this case there's a simple answer anyway. > > > > System trays are a bandaid meant to address flaws in a faulty interface > > metaphorr: you don't need a quick-access tool if you're not using a > > stacked/floating window layout. > > > > (I don't use systrays, but still:) How so? If you have, say, six windows per > tag quick access might be useful. One can have a use policy that avoids this, > but such use policies are not enforced by a tiling interface. > One might argue that, having that many windows per tag, no systray is going to making your workflow easier. I'm using this systray patch for a couple of reasons, and while it does its job, I don't think it fits what dwm proposes to do. -- J. Missao
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On 04/05/12 at 10:44am, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:24:20AM -0600, Jeremy Jackins wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:12 AM, KIMURA Masaru wrote: > > >> however in my opinion a system tray is > > >> not necessary and should not be added to mainline. > > > > > > if you don't mind my asking, explain why? > > > just curious. > > > > > > > Necessity needs justification, not the other way around. > > > > This is correct, but in this case there's a simple answer anyway. > > System trays are a bandaid meant to address flaws in a faulty interface > metaphorr: you don't need a quick-access tool if you're not using a > stacked/floating window layout. > (I don't use systrays, but still:) How so? If you have, say, six windows per tag quick access might be useful. One can have a use policy that avoids this, but such use policies are not enforced by a tiling interface. M
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:24:20AM -0600, Jeremy Jackins wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:12 AM, KIMURA Masaru wrote: > >> however in my opinion a system tray is > >> not necessary and should not be added to mainline. > > > > if you don't mind my asking, explain why? > > just curious. > > > > Necessity needs justification, not the other way around. > This is correct, but in this case there's a simple answer anyway. System trays are a bandaid meant to address flaws in a faulty interface metaphorr: you don't need a quick-access tool if you're not using a stacked/floating window layout.
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:12 AM, KIMURA Masaru wrote: >> however in my opinion a system tray is >> not necessary and should not be added to mainline. > > if you don't mind my asking, explain why? > just curious. > Necessity needs justification, not the other way around.
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On 04/05/12 at 05:12pm, KIMURA Masaru wrote: > > not necessary and should not be added to mainline. > if you don't mind my asking, explain why? For every task there are good tools which do not require a tray (e.g. network manager: netcfg). I use the xinitrc to display all system information I require. It is a little hard to argue why you don't need a tray if you don't understand why it would be useful in the first place. The only time I ever thought a tray would be nice was when skype minimized once, but that is more of a design flaw in skype. -- Hannes Blut pgpMs1jAHDppx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
> however in my opinion a system tray is > not necessary and should not be added to mainline. if you don't mind my asking, explain why? just curious.
Re: [dev] [dwm] systray in upstream dwm?
On 04/04/12 at 10:29pm, Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: > What needs to be done to get the systray patch upstream into dwm? Is there > any chance of getting it upstream or is it a total no go? That is of course arg's decision, however in my opinion a system tray is not necessary and should not be added to mainline. -- Hannes Blut pgpAUp3Cq7u3I.pgp Description: PGP signature
