On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 09:10:37PM -0700, AR Garbe wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have been revising dmenu/dwm/libsl in terms of simplicity due to a
> migration to OpenBSD recently.
>
> I can't get my head around on how much the elegance and clarity of
> dwm/dmenu/libsl code has suffered from the introduction of freetype2
> and fc usage.
>
> Back in the days I also concluded that the introduction of Xinerama
> and multihead support was a bad idea after all.
>
> I'm really at a point to consider forking dwm and dmenu to simply rely
> on X11 as it used to be, perhaps with going the extra mile to remove
> Xinerama support as well and to rely on single headed setups.
>
> What do you guys think about this idea?
>
> I barely use multihead setups and I don't give a f*ck about
> anti-aliasing. This whole freetype2 move seems utterly wrong. I didn't
> see it as critical before, but now I more and more conclude it has to
> go.
>
> Best regards,
> Anselm
>
Hi Anselm,
I agree with all the points about Freetype2. It has been bothering me for some
time too.
I think we should remove the drw.{c,h} abstractions also. The abstractions go
against the principle of having mostly one file to hack on and increasing
readability.
At the time it seemed like a good idea (also to me) to have libdrw to support
Wayland for example. It sounded nice in theory.
I think we should keep Xinerama though, but it wouldn't be an issue if it is a
wiki patch either.
For st there was a X11/terminal code split to support Wayland, automated
testing of terminal emulator code. Now there are abstractions but it is not
useful. Maybe it should be reverted also?
If/when we revert the code we should take good care to not introduce
regressions and review and test carefully. It has happened many times big code
changes and code reverts caused regressions.
--
Kind regards,
Hiltjo
