cvs commit: ports/x11-wm/windowmaker Makefile pkg-descrpkg-plist
ports/x11-wm/windowmaker/files patch-ah patch-src::switchpanel.c
DougB at DougBarton.net
Mon Oct 25 17:47:12 PDT 2004
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> pav 2004-10-25 22:27:52 UTC
> FreeBSD ports repository
> Modified files:
> x11-wm/windowmaker Makefile pkg-descr pkg-plist
> Added files:
> x11-wm/windowmaker/files patch-src::switchpanel.c
> Removed files:
> x11-wm/windowmaker/files patch-ah
> - Fix build on 4-stable
> - Fix libwraster shared library version
> - Remove a patch which is no longer needed
> - Remove options which are no longer supported
> - Fix pkg-plist
> - Revise pkg-descr
> PR: ports/73082 http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=73082
> Submitted by: KATO Tsuguru <tkato432 at yahoo.com>
> Revision Changes Path
> 1.123 +17 -21 ports/x11-wm/windowmaker/Makefile
> 1.2 +0 -11 ports/x11-wm/windowmaker/files/patch-ah (dead)
> 1.1 +12 -0 ports/x11-wm/windowmaker/files/patch-src::switchpanel.c (new)
> 1.1 +12 -0 ports/x11-wm/windowmaker/files/patch-src::wmspec.c (new)
> 1.3 +27 -0 ports/x11-wm/windowmaker/files/patch-src::workspace.c (new)
> 1.4 +8 -5 ports/x11-wm/windowmaker/pkg-descr
> 1.48 +7 -5 ports/x11-wm/windowmaker/pkg-plist
I have a couple of questions about and problems with this patch, and I'd
be interested to know KATO-san's reasoning behind them. Note, I think
it's really useful to have someone else take a look at this port, and my
updated was meant to be a functional, if not fully thought out update.
My point is, no criticism is implied here, just questions.
1. Does the USE_GNOME knob handle updating CONFIGURE_ARGS to include
2. I didn't include the --enable-xinerama knob by default because I
don't have the hardware to test it. My instinct is that it should be
hidden behind a WITH_XINERAMA knob.
3. The --with-vdesktop knob is experimental code, and not recommended
for production use by the window maker authors. I think it should be
hidden behind a WITH_WM_VDESKTOP knob.
4. I am wondering why the KDE option was removed by this patch.
5. I think that changing the shlib version number to 5 is a bad idea.
I'm not sure why the window maker authors chose to roll the number back
to 3, but I think that us changing it from what they have is a bad move.
I have sent a note to the wm-user list asking about this, I was waiting
to act until I get a response.
6. I dislike changes such as the s|Trebuchet MS,Luxi Sans|sans|g one. I
feel strongly that we should not be specifying things like this for the
users. Can you explain your rationale here?
7. I assume that the 2 new patches and one resurrected one are needed
for compiling on RELENG_4, yes? If so, I'll pass that info on to the
Meanwhile, thanks again for taking a look at this. :)
If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough
More information about the cvs-ports