Re: [musl] Re: [dev] [ANN] sabotage 2011-04-09, a musl+busybox based distribution

2011-04-12 Thread Anselm R Garbe
Hi guys, first of all, nice work Christian! On 12 April 2011 00:45, pancake wrote: > Slpm is probably much simpler than any ports system out there. It still needs > some love..But it works for my use cases. > > I recommend you to take a look on it. :) > > I already packaged musl, tcc and other

[dev] Re: [musl] Re: [ANN] sabotage 2011-04-09, a musl+busybox based distribution

2011-04-12 Thread Christian Neukirchen
Anselm R Garbe writes: > On 12 April 2011 00:45, pancake wrote: >> Slpm is probably much simpler than any ports system out there. It >> still needs some love..But it works for my use cases. >> >> I recommend you to take a look on it. :) >> >> I already packaged musl, tcc and other stuff in slpm

[dev] [dwm] NetActiveWindow

2011-04-12 Thread Peter John Hartman
Hi. Thanks go also to LokiChaos on #suckless. With this little patch[1] you can now use this little script[2] (and others presumably) to manipulate windows via xdotool in dwm. The little script conjurs up a list of available windows (via xprop and xdotool), pipes it into dmenu, which then passes

Re: [musl] Re: [dev] [ANN] sabotage 2011-04-09, a musl+busybox based distribution

2011-04-12 Thread pancake
My thoughts after testing it a bit. * why gcc3? i would love to see gcc4.6 with Go support * i dont see the difference between a ports system and what slpm does - the difference between a package system and a build system is that the package system registers what every package installs. you c

Re: [musl] Re: [dev] [ANN] sabotage 2011-04-09, a musl+busybox based distribution

2011-04-12 Thread Kurt H Maier
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:26 PM, pancake wrote: > * many of the packages included in this distro suck.. in fact. GNU software > sucks. you only have to check the sourcecode of 'true' program.. so i would > love if we could just get a base > system without libtool, autofoo, ncurses and other broken

[dev] [dwm] Patch to support WM_TAKE_FOCUS and InputHint

2011-04-12 Thread Brendan MacDonell
Hello, I recently noticed that some applications were losing the input focus in dwm, while it was properly maintained under other window managers (ex. twm.) After some poking around, I discovered that dwm doesn't handle the WM_TAKE_FOCUS atom or InputHint, as outlined in section 4.1.7 of the ICCCM

[dev] Re: [musl] Re: [ANN] sabotage 2011-04-09, a musl+busybox based distribution

2011-04-12 Thread Christian Neukirchen
pancake writes: > My thoughts after testing it a bit. > > * why gcc3? i would love to see gcc4.6 with Go support GCC 3 is only used for bootstraping because it is easy and quick to build. The system then compiles GCC 4.5.2 as of now. > * many of the packages included in this distro suck.. in f

Re: [dev] [dwm] Patch to support WM_TAKE_FOCUS and InputHint

2011-04-12 Thread Peter John Hartman
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 02:45:00PM -0400, Brendan MacDonell wrote: > Hello, > > I recently noticed that some applications were losing the input focus > in dwm, while it was properly maintained under other window managers > (ex. twm.) After some poking around, I discovered that dwm doesn't Nice.

Re: [dev] [dwm] Patch to support WM_TAKE_FOCUS and InputHint

2011-04-12 Thread Brendan MacDonell
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Peter John Hartman wrote: > Nice.  What apps? In my case I discovered it though issues with IntelliJ, though some poking around reveals that it affects many Java applications, such as JDeveloper, Netbeans, and jEdit, as well as MatLab and Maple. >Can I ask: Why wa

Re: [dev] [dwm] Patch to support WM_TAKE_FOCUS and InputHint

2011-04-12 Thread Anselm R Garbe
Hi Brendan, On 12 April 2011 20:45, Brendan MacDonell wrote: > I recently noticed that some applications were losing the input focus > in dwm, while it was properly maintained under other window managers > (ex. twm.) After some poking around, I discovered that dwm doesn't > handle the WM_TAKE_FOC