On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:53 PM, v4hn <m...@v4hn.de> wrote: > good morning! > > http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1006/4795.html > > reading mails isn't to hard, is it? >
Not if you get them. > > Well, probably you subscribed a couple of days later... > But don't blame me for not getting answers. > I just subscribed today, in order to send my email. I had not seen your message. > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:08:13AM -0400, Donald Allen wrote: > > 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. > > I updated, I bothered, I tested, I fixed manually for my setup and > wrote the mail mentioned above. Since nobody thought of a reply, > that's where we are. > The message you cite in the link above talks about the circular dependency created by moving the definition of the monitor struct. My comment above was addressing a different, simpler issue -- the fact that part of the patch gets rejected by 'patch'. Going to the issue that you raising in the linked message and that I separately raised (the incompatibility of pertag and things like bstack), I would suggest that it isn't sufficient to depend on people reading the dev mailing list, which some don't, myself included. The pertag patch is sitting there on the website for download with a known problem and a patch file that doesn't completely apply. At the very least the latter should have been fixed and the former mentioned in some way that would be visible to anyone using pertag (I don't suggest that pertag be withdrawn, because it works fine by itself, once the patch is completely applied, but anyone like me who tries to use it with bstack is going to have problems; since this is all known, why not explain it with the patch, to save others from having to duplicate the debugging work?). /Don > v4hn > >
