Hi,
There's an old forum thread from last year that just seems to have died out
about the subject. Did those patches ever get into main dwm? If so, they
don't look anything like the one that, e.g., Gottox recommended. As for the
Gottox patch (http://s01.de/~tox/hg/dwm/rev/d3c3a8018349) this did
Hey,
I've pushed a patch which should work to tip. Funnily enough if you
want an elegant solution you either have to use GNU make *or* BSD
make. To make them both happy you have to list every dependency twice.
No kidding.
Thanks,
cls
Isn't suckless supposed to use a portable subset of Makefile that's understood
by most make-programs?
Relying on gmake is usually a bad idea, even if it's present everywhere. I try
to keep my makefiles portable by - for instance - using
.c.o:
instead of
%.o: %.c
which would
Ramil Farkhshatov wrote:
> The condition may > be something like:
>
> (time_since_last_match_ms > threshold_ms
> || items_since_last_match > threshold_nitems
> || data_exhausted)
Stupid me. We can just match added single item.
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 12:00:51AM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> What is the reason for the failure on OpenBSD?
Before doing anything, I had the same message as Josh's :
make
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Ramil Farkhshatov wrote:
> Christophe-Marie Duquesne wrote:
> If dmenu starts matching after exhausting of data then it will not
> differ in behaviour from synchronous vanilla version.
Except it won't block if it does not read EOF, which was more or less
the init
Christophe-Marie Duquesne wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Ramil Farkhshatov wrote:
> > it doesn't run match() on each item, that increases speed and
> > reduces cpu usage. But conditions to run match() must be reconsidered:
> > in this patch it is called once a second.
>
> Would it make
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Ramil Farkhshatov wrote:
> it doesn't run match() on each item, that increases speed and
> reduces cpu usage. But conditions to run match() must be reconsidered:
> in this patch it is called once a second.
Would it make sense to call match() only when there is not
