On 11/02/14 at 03:49pm, Marc André Tanner wrote:
> Out of interest, for what do you use the cmd-fifo interface?
For irssi and nicklist[0]
[0] http://wouter.coekaerts.be/irssi/nicklist
--
Peter A. Shevtsov
Hello,
Classical example of when this is required is Midnight Commander - it
have useful mouse integration, but copy-pasting a filename or two is
sometimes a nice thing to be able to do. Some other terminal emulators
achieve this by not sending mouse events to the program whenever "Shift"
is
Dnia 2014-02-11, o godz. 20:15:06
Thorsten Glaser napisał(a):
> “Re: *** GMX Spamverdacht *** [dev] Reasonable Makefiles”.
> Honestly!
>
>
> Markus Wichmann dixit:
>
> >A typical Makefile of mine looks like this:
>
> Ugh, a horrid GNUmakefile… I normally write:
>
> PROG= foo
>
> .i
I added hotkey config file support. It is so ugly, and requires much
more code. I am ashamed of it to be honest, but it works.
except when it segfaults if your config isn't written pefectly. i'm
working on that.
On 11 February 2014 06:07, Kurt Van Dijck
wrote:
>> Although taking a different ap
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:15:06 + (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> Ugh, a horrid GNUmakefile… I normally write:
>
> PROG= foo
>
> .include
>
Not that I defend GNU make, but you can do:
foo:
This will use implicit rules and will compile foo.c. If you have more
than one file with s
“Re: *** GMX Spamverdacht *** [dev] Reasonable Makefiles”.
Honestly!
Markus Wichmann dixit:
>A typical Makefile of mine looks like this:
Ugh, a horrid GNUmakefile… I normally write:
PROG= foo
.include
Or, if the sources are more than just foo.c, and if the manpage
is in section 8
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:16:35PM +0100, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:19:59PM +, Nick wrote:
> > I was reading the opengroup specifications for make(1) recently[0],
> > and found that even our standard makefile practise of using 'include'
> > for config variables is nons
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:19:59PM +, Nick wrote:
> I was reading the opengroup specifications for make(1) recently[0],
> and found that even our standard makefile practise of using 'include'
> for config variables is nonstandard, as far as they're concerned.
> Needless to say I think 'include'
> The disadvantage of that is that having files called Makefile and
> makefile in the same directory, users may well look for the former to
> make changes, leading to confusion. I certainly didn't know that
Yes, it is true, you have to be carefull with this point, but usually
is not a problem.
>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:41:43PM +0100, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:39:43PM +0100, pmarin wrote:
> > You don't need to use the include statement.
> > cat config.mk Makefile | make -f -
>
> I usually use a rule in Makefile that, using cat in a similar way of
>
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 04:19:56PM +0700, Peter A. Shevtsov wrote:
> Hello Marc! Thank you for this fine software dvtm! I really like it!
>
> Today I was playing with cmd-fifo feature to automate some of my daily tasks.
Out of interest, for what do you use the cmd-fifo interface?
I originally ad
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:28:42PM +, sin wrote:
> It also makes it easy to have a configure script like as shown below:
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> case `uname` in
> OpenBSD)
> ln config.bsd config.mk
> ;;
> *)
> ln config.posix config.mk
> ;;
> esac
Aha! Now there's a good id
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:39:43PM +0100, pmarin wrote:
> You don't need to use the include statement.
> cat config.mk Makefile | make -f -
I usually use a rule in Makefile that, using cat in a similar way of
you, generates a file with the name makefile (it usually generates
the inclussion depende
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:17:27PM +0100, Mark Edgar wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Marc André Tanner
> wrote:
> > If I recall correctly you mentioned that you have a patch which makes
> > the window title configurable: top / bottom / disable. Would you mind
> > posting it? Someone ju
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:32:58 +0100
Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
> I would using 2 files hardly call 'decentralized'. Things can become worse
> than that :-)
Haha, yeah, that's definitely true!
Thanks for the heads up, these are definitely good reasons to go for
the separated approach.
Cheers
FRIGN
You don't need to use the include statement.
cat config.mk Makefile | make -f -
pmarin.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Nick wrote:
> I was reading the opengroup specifications for make(1) recently[0],
> and found that even our standard makefile practise of using 'include'
> for config variable
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:41:43AM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:28:25 +0100
> Markus Teich wrote:
>
> > Heyho,
> >
> > Regarding the include config.mk used in various suckless projects: What is
> > the
> > benefit? If a user needs to adapt it to his system, he effectively has to
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:28:25PM +0100, Markus Teich wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > I was reading the opengroup specifications for make(1) recently[0],
> > and found that even our standard makefile practise of using 'include'
> > for config variables is nonstandard, as far as they're concerned.
> > Nee
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:28:25PM +0100, Markus Teich wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > I was reading the opengroup specifications for make(1) recently[0],
> > and found that even our standard makefile practise of using 'include'
> > for config variables is nonstandard, as far as they're concerned.
> > Nee
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:28:25 +0100
Markus Teich wrote:
> Heyho,
>
> Regarding the include config.mk used in various suckless projects: What is the
> benefit? If a user needs to adapt it to his system, he effectively has to
> edit a
> file. Would there be a problem if this file would be the Make
On 14-02-11 13:28:25, Markus Teich wrote:
Nick wrote:
I was reading the opengroup specifications for make(1) recently[0],
and found that even our standard makefile practise of using 'include'
for config variables is nonstandard, as far as they're concerned.
Needless to say I think 'include' is a
Nick wrote:
> I was reading the opengroup specifications for make(1) recently[0],
> and found that even our standard makefile practise of using 'include'
> for config variables is nonstandard, as far as they're concerned.
> Needless to say I think 'include' is a perfectly reasonable feature
> to us
I was reading the opengroup specifications for make(1) recently[0],
and found that even our standard makefile practise of using 'include'
for config variables is nonstandard, as far as they're concerned.
Needless to say I think 'include' is a perfectly reasonable feature
to use, and it evidently wo
> Although taking a different approach (conf file parsed at start-up,
> additional features), the sxhkd/shkd might be of interest.
> The former is for X and the latter for the console. The two have
> compatible configuration files formats.
>
> https://github.com/baskerville/sxhkd
> https://github.
24 matches
Mail list logo
