[dwm] Re: What happened here?
I recently switched from dwm to xmonad. I did not like the rigid constraint on a certain number of code lines. The resulting way of doing it with patches in my opinion is not very sincere. I needed only two - and they did not match. Though I do not know haskell at all I find it very simple to configure xmonad, took me an hour or so to get things done. But on the other hand being no coder I do not fit into the dwm target group anyhow. ;) henry
[dwm] Re: pertag patch
On Sa, Jan 03 2009, daniel fusser wrote: 2009/1/3 henry atting nspm...@literaturlatenight.de On Fr, Jan 02 2009, v4hn wrote: dwm.c:1743: error: redefinition of 'viewnext' dwm.c:1709: error: previous definition of 'viewnext' was here dwm.c:1760: error: redefinition of 'viewprevious' dwm.c:1726: error: previous definition of 'viewprevious' was here make: *** [dwm.o] Fehler 1 As far as I see I have to decide for either the pertag or the arrownav patch, so I decided for the latter. Thanks henry Hi, I had the same problem some time ago but i managed to make them both work. I removed the pertag variables in dwm.c and put them into my config.h where I also put the viewnext() and viewprevious() functions. These two functions have to be modified as well to make them work with the pertag patch otherwise the values won't get stored when the function is called (which means if you use the arrowkeys to change tags the pertag patch stuff has no effect). I can't remember what exactly caused the redefiniton errors but it works for me this way... Unfortunately it does not work for me, dwm crashes when switching to another tag. But anyway it's a good start, thanks, I will further look into it when I have a little more time. henry
[dwm] pertag patch
I am looking for the pertag patch for 5.4. Is it available anywhere? Kind regards, henry
[dwm] Re: pertag patch
On Fr, Jan 02 2009, Valentin wrote: Yes, it is. I updated it a couple of days ago, but for some reason arg still hasn't put it one the wiki =P You can get it here: http://lists.suckless.org/dwm/0812/7209.html Very nice, thanks :) henry
[dwm] Re: pertag patch
Mmh, I must have got it wrong. I expected if I change the layout of one tag - let's say from tiled to bottomstack - it would not change the layout of all tags but only the current one. As far as I can see this is not what pertag does... henry
[dwm] Re: pertag patch
On Fr, Jan 02 2009, v4hn wrote: On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 06:12:45PM +0100, henry atting wrote: Mmh, I must have got it wrong. I expected if I change the layout of one tag - let's say from tiled to bottomstack - it would not change the layout of all tags but only the current one. As far as I can see this is not what pertag does... That's what it _should_ do and does for me. What's the problem? Okay, I have three tags, suppose the layout of all is tiled. I switch to the third tag and change the layout to floating. As a result all three tags now have a floating layout. henry
[dwm] Re: pertag patch
On Fr, Jan 02 2009, v4hn wrote: On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 08:41:08PM +0100, henry atting wrote: Okay, I have three tags, suppose the layout of all is tiled. I switch to the third tag and change the layout to floating. As a result all three tags now have a floating layout. I suppose you didn't apply the patch clean/at all(?). Take a look at how to do so and give it another try. I now gave it even more than one try. It applies well. Hunk #1 succeeded at 199 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 242 (offset 2 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 1251 (offset 15 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 1268 (offset 15 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 1316 (offset 15 lines). Hunk #6 succeeded at 1456 (offset 18 lines). Hunk #7 succeeded at 1489 (offset 18 lines). Hunk #8 succeeded at 1680 (offset 18 lines). But the moment this patch `dwm-5.4-arrownav.diff' comes into play it fails dwm.c:1743: error: redefinition of ‘viewnext’ dwm.c:1709: error: previous definition of ‘viewnext’ was here dwm.c:1760: error: redefinition of ‘viewprevious’ dwm.c:1726: error: previous definition of ‘viewprevious’ was here make: *** [dwm.o] Fehler 1 As far as I see I have to decide for either the pertag or the arrownav patch, so I decided for the latter. Thanks henry
[dwm] dwm-5.4 stdin; cycle tags
Hello, I recently switched from awesome to dwm which gives me my desktop back ;) I am currently using 5.4 from Mecurial. Two questions: - A `make clean install' does install dwm but it cannot read from stdin which prevents me from displaying time and date on the toolbar. config.h:15: warning: ‘readin’ defined but not used - I found a patch for cycling through tags in this group but it is for dwm-5.2 and apparently does not work for 5.4. How can I set up cycling through tags for 5.4? Cheers, henry
[dwm] Re: dwm-5.4 stdin; cycle tags
Zitat - Anselm R Garbe * Sa Dez 13 2008 um 17:17 - 2008/12/13 henry atting nspm...@literaturlatenight.de: - A `make clean install' does install dwm but it cannot read from stdin which prevents me from displaying time and date on the toolbar. config.h:15: warning: 'readin' defined but not used See the README file for an example, the status text is set using xsetroot(1) now. Ah, I read this but thought I could do it either way. It works fine with xsetroot. - I found a patch for cycling through tags in this group but it is for dwm-5.2 and apparently does not work for 5.4. How can I set up cycling through tags for 5.4? The tagging approach didn't change between 5.2 and 5.4, so I assume it's just a matter of making the 5.2 patch applying to the 5.4 codebase. Mmh, I am not very familiar with patching, I did it this way: , | do! patch -p1 dwm-5.2-arrownav.diff | missing header for unified diff at line 3 of patch | can't find file to patch at input line 3 | Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? | The text leading up to this was: | -- | |--- config.def.h Tue Sep 9 15:46:17 2008 | |+++ config.def.h Tue Nov 18 19:26:53 2008 | -- | File to patch: config.def.h | patching file config.def.h | Hunk #1 succeeded at 62 (offset 1 line). | missing header for unified diff at line 14 of patch | can't find file to patch at input line 14 | Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? | The text leading up to this was: | -- | |--- dwm.c Tue Sep 9 15:46:17 2008 | |+++ dwm.c Tue Nov 18 19:31:55 2008 | -- | File to patch: dwm.c | patching file dwm.c | Hunk #1 succeeded at 197 (offset -1 lines). | Hunk #2 FAILED at 1668. | 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file dwm.c.rej ` cheers, henry dwm.c.rej Description: Binary data
Re: [dwm] Re: dwm-5.4 stdin; cycle tags
Zitat - Anselm R Garbe * Sa Dez 13 2008 um 17:54 - 2008/12/13 henry atting nspm...@literaturlatenight.de: 2008/12/13 henry atting nspm...@literaturlatenight.de: The tagging approach didn't change between 5.2 and 5.4, so I assume it's just a matter of making the 5.2 patch applying to the 5.4 codebase. Mmh, I am not very familiar with patching, I did it this way: , | do! patch -p1 dwm-5.2-arrownav.diff | missing header for unified diff at line 3 of patch | can't find file to patch at input line 3 | Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? | The text leading up to this was: | -- | |--- config.def.h Tue Sep 9 15:46:17 2008 | |+++ config.def.h Tue Nov 18 19:26:53 2008 | -- | File to patch: config.def.h | patching file config.def.h | Hunk #1 succeeded at 62 (offset 1 line). | missing header for unified diff at line 14 of patch | can't find file to patch at input line 14 | Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? | The text leading up to this was: | -- | |--- dwm.c Tue Sep 9 15:46:17 2008 | |+++ dwm.c Tue Nov 18 19:31:55 2008 | -- | File to patch: dwm.c | patching file dwm.c | Hunk #1 succeeded at 197 (offset -1 lines). | Hunk #2 FAILED at 1668. | 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file dwm.c.rej ` Well as I said, you will need to patch it manually, since the lines have changed and the heuristic approach supported by patch(1) isn't succeeding either. Kind regards, --Anselm I see, great thanks henry
Re: [dwm] Re: dwm-5.4 stdin; cycle tags
Zitat - James Turner * Sa Dez 13 2008 um 18:43 - On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 06:09:11PM +0100, henry atting wrote: Zitat - Anselm R Garbe * Sa Dez 13 2008 um 17:54 - 2008/12/13 henry atting nspm...@literaturlatenight.de: 2008/12/13 henry atting nspm...@literaturlatenight.de: The tagging approach didn't change between 5.2 and 5.4, so I assume it's just a matter of making the 5.2 patch applying to the 5.4 codebase. Mmh, I am not very familiar with patching, I did it this way: , | do! patch -p1 dwm-5.2-arrownav.diff | missing header for unified diff at line 3 of patch | can't find file to patch at input line 3 | Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? | The text leading up to this was: | -- | |--- config.def.h Tue Sep 9 15:46:17 2008 | |+++ config.def.h Tue Nov 18 19:26:53 2008 | -- | File to patch: config.def.h | patching file config.def.h | Hunk #1 succeeded at 62 (offset 1 line). | missing header for unified diff at line 14 of patch | can't find file to patch at input line 14 | Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? | The text leading up to this was: | -- | |--- dwm.c Tue Sep 9 15:46:17 2008 | |+++ dwm.c Tue Nov 18 19:31:55 2008 | -- | File to patch: dwm.c | patching file dwm.c | Hunk #1 succeeded at 197 (offset -1 lines). | Hunk #2 FAILED at 1668. | 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file dwm.c.rej ` Well as I said, you will need to patch it manually, since the lines have changed and the heuristic approach supported by patch(1) isn't succeeding either. Kind regards, --Anselm I see, great thanks henry Henry, Attached is an updated arrownav patch [0] that should apply to dwm tip cleanly. [0] http://bsdgroup.org/files/dwm-5.4-arrownav.diff Patching works without problems but I get this warnings: dwm.c:1640: warning: ‘viewnext’ defined but not used dwm.c:1657: warning: ‘viewprevious’ defined but not used And, what should I say, it *is* not used ;) henry
[dwm] Re: dwm-5.4 stdin; cycle tags
Zitat - Brendan MacDonell * Sa Dez 13 2008 um 19:42 - On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:26 PM, henry atting nspm...@literaturlatenight.de wrote: Patching works without problems but I get this warnings: dwm.c:1640: warning: 'viewnext' defined but not used dwm.c:1657: warning: 'viewprevious' defined but not used And, what should I say, it *is* not used ;) henry That's because you haven't bound those functions to any keys in your config.h. ;) Oops, sure! Thanks to all. I'm really glad I switched from awesome to dwm. If I had knewn it before it would have spared me some trouble... henry
