Michael Knudsen wrote:
Hello,
this is a port of jwm, Joe's Window Manager. From the website:
Seems to work OK on i386 using Xnest as you suggested.
Works OK on sparc64 when running it over ssh. Used Xnest as well
here.
However, when starting jwm I get the following:
/bin/sh: xli: not found
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:26:19 +0100
Sigfred Håversen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Knudsen wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > this is a port of jwm, Joe's Window Manager. From the website:
> However, when starting jwm I get the following:
>
> /bin/sh: xli: not found
seems to me as if "xli" is used
Quoting Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > /bin/sh: xli: not found
> seems to me as if "xli" is used by a configuration file to set the
> background for jwm.
Yep, that's why. As I said, I won't do anything about the default theme
unless someone strongly disagrees. I think it's usab
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 12:49:44AM +0100, Michael Knudsen wrote:
> Quoting Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > /bin/sh: xli: not found
> > seems to me as if "xli" is used by a configuration file to set the
> > background for jwm.
>
> Yep, that's why. As I said, I won't do anything
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 10:13:59 +0100
steven mestdagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 12:49:44AM +0100, Michael Knudsen wrote:
> > Quoting Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > /bin/sh: xli: not found
> > > seems to me as if "xli" is used by a configuration file t
Quoting steven mestdagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> what is xli? we don't seem to have that, so maybe you can patch it away.
> tested succesfully on sparc64.
HOW IS XLI RELATED TO XLOADIMAGE ?
xli version 1.00 was based on xloadimage version 3.01.
xli version 1.16 has many improvements over xl
Quoting steven mestdagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Update attached, please test.
>
> the attached tar.gz is 0 bytes.
.. and it's not even Monday.
Second attempt.
--
The Librarian gave him the kind of look other people would reserve for
people who said things like `What's so bad about genocide?'
-
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:09:44AM +0100, Michael Knudsen wrote:
> Quoting steven mestdagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > what is xli? we don't seem to have that, so maybe you can patch it away.
> > tested succesfully on sparc64.
>
> HOW IS XLI RELATED TO XLOADIMAGE ?
>
> xli version 1.00 was based
Quoting steven mestdagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> i still see the man page ending up in section 1, but i think that is fine.
> i don't have a problem viewing the man page.
Oh, interesting. I'm using MANPAGER=less. With MANPAGER=more there's no
issue. Using hexcurse, I'm seeing 70 0x0A's -- it seems l
Quoting Michael Knudsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Quoting steven mestdagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > i still see the man page ending up in section 1, but i think that is fine.
> > i don't have a problem viewing the man page.
>
> Oh, interesting. I'm using MANPAGER=less. With MANPAGER=more there's no
>
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 12:29:06PM +0100, Michael Knudsen wrote:
> Quoting Michael Knudsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Quoting steven mestdagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > i still see the man page ending up in section 1, but i think that is fine.
> > > i don't have a problem viewing the man page.
> >
>
Quoting steven mestdagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> your fix seems fine. many other man pages also have 3 blank lines at the
> top with MANPAGER=less.
I guess they're also using the an macro set then.
> some more comments:
> - the port does not honour CFLAGS.
It should do that now, along with CC.
>
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 04:20:14PM +0100, Michael Knudsen wrote:
> Quoting steven mestdagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > your fix seems fine. many other man pages also have 3 blank lines at the
> > top with MANPAGER=less.
>
> I guess they're also using the an macro set then.
>
> > some more comments:
Quoting steven mestdagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > some more comments:
> > > - the port does not honour CFLAGS.
> >
> > It should do that now, along with CC.
>
> it does not, there is still a flag -O2 after our CFLAGS. you may need to
> patch configure to get rid of it.
I patched that away in co
Michael Knudsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> New version attached.
DESCR doesn't quite make sense. Surely somebody who installs the
package is not concerned with hypothetical compile time options.
Gmake isn't really required. Just remove the mistaken $< dependency for
the .c.o suffix rule in s
15 matches
Mail list logo
