Re: [stali] base tools and build system (Was [dev]Shell style guide)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Greg Reagle wrote: > My two cents... > Granted that rc+mk are far superior to /bin/sh+GNU make, but if there > are already 3rd party (i.e. not from suckless) packages/programs that > depend on sh+gmake, you might as well just use them as is.

Re: [stali] base tools and build system (Was [dev]Shell style guide)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 10:56 AM, Evan Gates wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Anselm R Garbe > wrote: > > Nevertheless, after an excursion to sh for several years, I'm kind of > > favouring 9base/rc again, after all. For stali I now tend to adopt rc > > as primary

Re: [stali] Purpose (was Re: [dev] Re: [stali] updating package source)

it's hard to know when to build upon other people's work and when to avoid it. for any work to succeed the scope has to be achievably small or at least self-contained, but also still useful. sucking less alone (obviously) is not enough. If we need packages we could just do it like tinycorelinux

[stali] base tools and build system (Was [dev]Shell style guide)

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > Nevertheless, after an excursion to sh for several years, I'm kind of > favouring 9base/rc again, after all. For stali I now tend to adopt rc > as primary scripting language for the target system as well. For the > build

Re: [stali] Purpose (was Re: [dev] Re: [stali] updating package source)

Hi FRIGN, On 15 September 2016 at 12:17, FRIGN wrote: >> concentrate on the essence here, this is all a waste of time. > - hiro > > to be fair and meaning no offense to anybody, I think stali in > general is a waste of time. It is too ambitious given the low manpower > and

[stali] Purpose (was Re: [dev] Re: [stali] updating package source)

Hello fellow hackers, > concentrate on the essence here, this is all a waste of time. - hiro to be fair and meaning no offense to anybody, I think stali in general is a waste of time. It is too ambitious given the low manpower and the hypetrain, if I may call it so, is just pissing

Re: [dev] Re: [stali] updating package source

concentrate on the essence here, this is all a waste of time.

Re: [dev] dev+unsubscr...@suckless.org

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:05:46AM +0100, Joseph Graham wrote: > hey Hi > -- > Joseph Graham Remember that it's the address, not the subject that should be dev+unsubscribe. All the best

[dev] dev+unsubscr...@suckless.org

hey -- Joseph Graham

Re: [dev] st output is not correctly updated

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Ivan Delalande wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:39:41PM -0800, Britton Kerin wrote: >> btw, st sometime seems to eat input, and fail to output lines. You >> might want to >> try it without dvtm sometime in case that program is somehow masking a

Re: [dev] Re: [stali] updating package source

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > Let's call the tool metasrc, it consists of a metafile that contains the > format: > > # comment > local/path/situation:git-url[#tag|ref|branch] > ... [snip] > This has also the advantage, that in theory one could also deal with >

Re: [dev] Re: [stali] updating package source

Hi Evan, On 15 September 2016 at 01:08, Evan Gates wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Evan Gates wrote: > documentation, I realize I misunderstood submodules, and subtrees are > a better fit. > > For example, using sbase: > > git remote add