On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Andrew Antle <andrew.an...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Donald Allen <donaldcal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > dwm-5.8.2: if you attempt to apply both the pertag and bstack patches to > > dwm, the resulting code will not compile. The reason is that the > definition > > of the monitor struct is moved after the include of config.h in dwm.c by > > the pertag patch. The bstack patch includes the bstack and bstackhoriz > > functions (which reference the monitor struct) in config.h. The code > won't > > compile, because those references to the monitor struct are now forward > > references. > > I have fixed this by inserting the bstack and bstackhoriz functions > directly > > into dwm.c, just after the analogous tile function. Function prototypes > for > > bstack and bstackhoriz are also needed in the /* Function declarations */ > > section. For the community, this could easily be fixed by generating a > .diff > > to dwm.c for the bstack patch, rather than including the code in > config.h. > > I also note that simply attempting to apply the bstack patch fails (I did > > this with vanilla 5.8.2 -- no pertag patch applied): > > patch -p1 < dwm-5.8.2-bstack.diff > > patching file bstack.c > > patching file bstackhoriz.c > > patching file config.def.h > > Hunk #1 succeeded at 29 with fuzz 1. > > Hunk #2 FAILED at 36. > > 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file config.def.h.rej > > It appears that whoever updated this patch for 5.8.2 didn't bother to > test > > whether it actually worked, which is disappointing. I hand-edited the > lines > > that patch refused to insert. > > /Don > > > > Why don't you fix these patches and submit them? > I actually offered to do this in a private message to Anselm last December. He didn't respond. He's always been very good about responding to my emails (and in a very gentlemanly way, I might add), so I think this one just fell through a crack (and I'd be lying if I claimed I'd never done this myself). That I sent it on the day before Xmas probably didn't help. In that message I mentioned that I wasn't sure what the protocol was for fixing the patches of others (e.g., suppose I fix a problem in a way that is not acceptable to the original author -- what then?). I don't want to take the time to do this if it won't be used. /Don > -- > Andrew Antle > <andrew dot antle at gmail dot com> > >
