On Fri, February 24, 2012, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
Is possible to propose a patch rewritting wm scripts (like wmaker.inst)
from BASH to Perl?
Possible? Certainly.
Why? BASH is harder to maintain, more erro prone. All the time there is a
need for hacks.
I disagree. For simple, file system
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 10:35:53 +0200, Rodolfo kix Garcia wrote:
In debian, the /usr/bin/wmaker is an script. This script checks if
the user has the GNUstep folder. If the folder exists, then launch
/usr/share/WindowMaker/wmaker (binary), else, copy the GNUstep
default files and then launch
On 24.02.2012 10:36, Paul Harris wrote:
On 24 February 2012 17:28, Kamil Rytarowski n...@gmx.com
mailto:n...@gmx.com wrote:
On 24.02.2012 09:19, Martin Dietze wrote:
On Fri, February 24, 2012, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
Is possible to propose a patch rewritting wm
On 24.02.2012 11:48, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
I disagree. For simple, file system centric tasks, shell scripts
are just the technology of choice.
I agree that it's used for simple tasks to execute things, but I disagree about
centric tasks. It's in use o
For example it's in use in Udev
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Kamil Rytarowski n...@gmx.com wrote:
On 24.02.2012 11:48, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
I disagree. For simple, file system centric tasks, shell scripts
are just the technology of choice.
I agree that it's used for simple tasks to execute things, but I
On 24.02.2012 10:19, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 10:35:53 +0200, Rodolfo kix Garcia wrote:
In debian, the /usr/bin/wmaker is an script. This script checks if
the user has the GNUstep folder. If the folder exists, then launch
/usr/share/WindowMaker/wmaker (binary), else, copy
From 18b3055623f830e998b5222cafd4f3ff6aa32f6c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Rodolfo=20Garc=C3=ADa=20Pe=C3=B1as=20(kix)?= k...@kix.es
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:18:47 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] WindowMaker: Spanish translation updated
The spanish translation is updated.
---
po/es.po | 149
Fuck!
forget this patch again. I did something wrong.
Cheers.
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Rodolfo García Peñas escribió:
From 18b3055623f830e998b5222cafd4f3ff6aa32f6c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Rodolfo=20Garc=C3=ADa=20Pe=C3=B1as=20(kix)?= k...@kix.es
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:18:47
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Kamil Rytarowski escribió:
On 24.02.2012 10:19, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 10:35:53 +0200, Rodolfo kix Garcia wrote:
In debian, the /usr/bin/wmaker is an script. This script checks if
the user has the GNUstep folder. If the folder exists, then launch
On 24.02.2012 12:31, Brian Tomlinson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Kamil Rytarowski n...@gmx.com
mailto:n...@gmx.com wrote:
On 24.02.2012 11 tel:24.02.2012%2011:48, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
I disagree. For simple, file system centric tasks, shell scripts
are just the
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project wmaker-crm.git.
The branch, next has been updated
via a81c8f997f16c5a56bc3160767a80cb53d24a7fa (commit)
from
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 19:09:39 +0100, Rodolfo García Peñas wrote:
Because I created the bug, I will make the patch.
Your previous patch is only on #next, I will kick it out and
the bug you created will be gone.
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org.
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Carlos R. Mafra escribió:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 19:09:39 +0100, Rodolfo García Peñas wrote:
Because I created the bug, I will make the patch.
Your previous patch is only on #next, I will kick it out and
the bug you created will be gone.
Please,
don't drop it.
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 19:47:28 +0100, Rodolfo García Peñas wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Carlos R. Mafra escribió:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 19:09:39 +0100, Rodolfo García Peñas wrote:
Because I created the bug, I will make the patch.
Your previous patch is only on #next, I will kick
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Carlos R. Mafra escribió:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 19:47:28 +0100, Rodolfo García Peñas wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Carlos R. Mafra escribió:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 19:09:39 +0100, Rodolfo García Peñas wrote:
Because I created the bug, I will make the patch.
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 20:15:09 +0100, Rodolfo García Peñas wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Carlos R. Mafra escribió:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 19:47:28 +0100, Rodolfo García Peñas wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Carlos R. Mafra escribió:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 19:09:39 +0100, Rodolfo García
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 09:58:47AM +, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 at 1:21:58 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Use logical negation instead of comparison to 0 for a value that can
be numeric, but is null by default.
This doesn't seem to be right.
'restarting' is not a
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:48:26AM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 24.02.2012 10:36, Paul Harris wrote:
Not every system has Perl installed.
Do you really want to have wmaker depend on Perl ?
I can say, that not every system has BASH.
Every system will have a bourne-compatible shell
Can someone explain to me the obsession with having a systray?
Thanks for asking Stewart. Lots of application in current
distributions use this feature and having support to system tray can
make difference. Trust me.
I honestly don't get why so many people are so enamoured of the idea.
It's
Brad Jorsch wrote:
Every system will have a bourne-compatible shell installed as /bin/sh,
or MANY things will break. Does wmaker.inst have bashisms, or is all
this talk about bash not entirely accurate?
According to my wmaker.inst, it is #!/bin/sh and my /bin/sh is a symlink
to dash.
IMHO,
begin quoting Leonardo Menezes Vaz as of Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 07:16:16PM -0200:
Can someone explain to me the obsession with having a systray?
Thanks for asking Stewart. Lots of application in current
distributions use this feature and having support to system tray can
make difference.
On Fri, February 24, 2012, Brad Jorsch wrote:
Every system will have a bourne-compatible shell installed as /bin/sh,
or MANY things will break. Does wmaker.inst have bashisms, or is all
this talk about bash not entirely accurate?
There are no bashisms in that script. The code is fairly
So? I'm not advocating that WindowMaker be systray-hostile, only
wondering at the folks who want it built-in. Do these applications
refuse to behave correctly without a systray?
Most applications work fine without a system tray, but NetworkManager
for example needs it.
I disagree.
That's
On 25.02.2012 00:26, SJS wrote:
If the systray were to be somehow *useful*, I might start using it,
but I don't see any way that it makes my life any better. I was hoping
that one of the advocates could quietly explain HOW it makes *their*
life better, as I truly do seek understanding, if not
On Feb 24, 2012, at 9:10 PM, Kamil Rytarowski n...@gmx.com wrote:
For now I'm using Docker, but I will to switch to wmsystemtray.
Currently it's not buildable
I just built wmsystemtray using the source tarball at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wmsystemtray/
This was on a 32-bit Arch Linux
On 25.02.2012 05:06, Leonardo Menezes Vaz wrote:
I just built wmsystemtray using the source tarball at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wmsystemtray/
This was on a 32-bit Arch Linux system. ./config , make, make install and it's
running well.
Build works fine here too (Fedora 16 / x86_64).
26 matches
Mail list logo
