Hello Anselm, > I did investigate the options and made up my mind. Here is my verdict: > > The idea behind libsl has to be improved in code and I will work on > this. The drw.h API is not strictly enough defined and both dwm and > dmenu access certain aspects of drw.h that they shouldn't, which makes > it currently impossible to cleanly implement either simple plain X11 > support or let the Xft/fc abomination survive in one possible > direction or to introduce a different implementation like cairo-based.
Maybe drw is not needed at all and could be put back into main code. > I will reassess if the xlib dependent part in dwm can be separated > further as well, to allow a more agnostic WM core. Hum, this was tried for st, and imo it didn't bring much benefit, only a half-separation of code into files, but not totally separated. > I know that I did raise the multihead question a couple of times in > the past, and mostly the picture I gathered was 50/50 -- one half uses > Xinerama setups, the other doesn't. Thus my old idea of arranging the > code in a different way might be an answer, which would allow building > dwm single-headed (without Screen) and multi-headed (witch Screen > derived from Xinerama). I use Xinerama, but I can live with it being stripped off into the patches section. Would it really bring much more simplicity? > I think this whole effort will lead to 6.2 rather than some fork. But > I want it be easier to built a clean dwm without the cruft in setups > where most of the cruft is (fortunately still) absent. Yes, no need for a fork, I think we all agree on the font madness and will find common choices
