On 20 November 2014 06:31, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 07:58:28PM +0100, k...@shike2.com wrote:
>> For long time I followed the rule of kernel style of not using typedef
>> ever, but I changed it to the rule of using typedef only with structs
>> and capital letter, and I can s
On 19 November 2014 22:51, Evan Gates wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> I suggest http://suckless.org/style[.md], to be the central place for this.
>>
>> @Evan, feel free to proceed ;)
>
> I just submitted a first draft doing my best to include everything
> that w
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 07:58:28PM +0100, k...@shike2.com wrote:
> For long time I followed the rule of kernel style of not using typedef
> ever, but I changed it to the rule of using typedef only with structs
> and capital letter, and I can say that this last is far better; You
> get more readable
Void Linux [1] and (OpenBSD [2] or Bitrig [3]). Both easy to install,
configure, and use.
OpenBSD has poor multiprocessing performance but Bitrig is working on it.
Void seems, in many ways, a better Arch.
I mean to try morpheus too at some time when not so busy.
I tried Plan 9 but the interface
As we recently found out POSIX make is lacking. For fun I started to
write a POSIX sh script to build sbase (attached and linked[0]). I
don't know if we should use it, but it's food for thought after the
recent pain (including requiring a GNU tool). If there's interest I
can finish fleshing it out.
There's an incredible amount of spam and OT on this list isn't there!
On 19/11/14 21:27, Lee Fallat wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
Which of these aren't available on OpenBSD in your opinion?
I think OpenBSD has most of what I listed, but lacks hardware
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> I suggest http://suckless.org/style[.md], to be the central place for this.
>
> @Evan, feel free to proceed ;)
I just submitted a first draft doing my best to include everything
that was mentioned here. As always it is most definitely a wor
> C90, or any version of standard C, does not have a concept of "system
> headers", other than giving implementations permission to place their
> own implementation-defined files in places searched by #include
> .
At this point I was talking about POSIX of course. C90 doesn't give
implementations
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> Which of these aren't available on OpenBSD in your opinion?
>
I think OpenBSD has most of what I listed, but lacks hardware support.
Using a computer's CPU to its full extent is nice too. I'm usually
running apache with at least 10 vir
Lee Fallat said:
> I would like to use an alternative OS, such as OpenBSD or Plan 9 full
> time, but I don't have the resources. Resources in this case are
> servers running mainstream OSs to run services and tools like apache,
> database software, 3d modeling software and so on.
Which of these ar
I've been a happy Arch user for 4 years, but I've been seriously considering
moving to FreeBSD. Lots of similarities between the two, and FreeBSD has all the
software I use in its ports tree. It seems to have the right balance of
simplicity and customizability, and the -STABLE branch gets regular u
Josh Lawrence writes:
> What do you run on your computer, and why?
Arch+ignite, and soon Void. Debian stable on servers I don't fuzz
around with daily.
--
Christian Neukirchenhttp://chneukirchen.org
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 04:41:39PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 18 November 2014 19:25, Greg Reagle wrote:
> > Hello. Is there a particular reason that a combination of cp, mkdir,
> > and chmod are used rather than the install command, in several suckless
> > projects (in the install target
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014, at 13:51, k...@shike2.com wrote:
>
> > system headers should come first, then a newline, then libc headers
> > then a newline then local headers.
>
>
> I usually do just the inverse, first libc headers and later system
> headers.
>
> > the libc headers are guaranteed to wo
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 21:00:46 +0100
Markus Teich wrote:
> I'm living near Munich, but Budapest would also be ok. I've been there this
> summer and it's not even close to the expensiveness of Munich. This could even
> out the higher travelling costs for some of you.
I'm not sure. I could get to M
FRIGN wrote:
> However, I think we could put together some data on who lives where
> and then actually mark down a good place for it to happen.
Heyho,
I'm living near Munich, but Budapest would also be ok. I've been there this
summer and it's not even close to the expensiveness of Munich. This co
> Was there as reason or did the user trolls attending the last one
> just have fun pissing off most of the suckless-contributors?
> There's no reason to have a conference in Budapest when most people
> come from a completely different part of the world.
> However, I think we could put together so
On 19 November 2014 14:32, Greg Reagle wrote:
> On 11/19/2014 01:19 PM, Josh Lawrence wrote:
>> I'm curious to know what flavor of *nix people on this list use on a
>> day-to-day basis.
>
for linux, I use debian across the board, it makes it easier for me to
deal with getting my development/use s
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 08:44:53PM +0100, k...@shike2.com wrote:
>
> >> In fact, POSIX says that it could be only:
> >>
> >>
> >>$(LIB): libutf($(LIBUTFOBJ)) libutil($(LIBUTILOBJ))
> >>
> >> but my experience is that it doesn't work in BSD systems :(
> >
> > We now depend on GNU make. I a
>> In fact, POSIX says that it could be only:
>>
>>
>> $(LIB): libutf($(LIBUTFOBJ)) libutil($(LIBUTILOBJ))
>>
>> but my experience is that it doesn't work in BSD systems :(
>
> We now depend on GNU make. I am tired of fighting make implementations.
Ok, but I think current Makefile works
Thats why gnu autoconf ships install-sh script ;) as a fallback when install is
not found
On 19 Nov 2014, at 20:36, k...@shike2.com wrote:
>>> On 18 November 2014 19:25, Greg Reagle wrote:
>>> Hello. Is there a particular reason that a combination of cp, mkdir,
>>> and chmod are used rather
> On 18 November 2014 19:25, Greg Reagle wrote:
>> Hello. Is there a particular reason that a combination of cp, mkdir,
>> and chmod are used rather than the install command, in several suckless
>> projects (in the install target of Makefile)?
>
> To me the answer is rather obvious. install viol
On 11/19/2014 01:19 PM, Josh Lawrence wrote:
> I'm curious to know what flavor of *nix people on this list use on a
> day-to-day basis.
I use:
Ubuntu LTS: job workstation and job server
Manjaro: job laptop and home laptop
Debian stable: home desktop and job server
I really like the stability of D
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:19:15PM -0600, Josh Lawrence wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I'm curious to know what flavor of *nix people on this list use on a
> day-to-day basis. I've recall that some have mentioned using OpenBSD,
> and I recently saw a reference to Fedora which, to be honest,
> surprised
>>> types
>>> =
>>> user defined types start with a capital letter
>>> when possible typedef struct {} Name;
>>
>> Debatable. I'd like to hear more opinions on this.
>
> In most suckless code types always start with capital letters (pretty
> much acme/p9 influenced), as opposed to lower cas
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 08:15:09PM +0100, k...@shike2.com wrote:
> > The Makefile made libutil.a and libutf.a identical. Here is a patch to fix
> > this.
> >
> > -$(LIB): $(LIBUTFOBJ) $(LIBUTILOBJ)
> > +$(LIBUTF): $(LIBUTFOBJ)
> > + $(AR) -r -c $@ $?
> > + $(RANLIB) $@
> > +
> > +$(LIBUT
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:19:15PM -0600, Josh Lawrence wrote:
> So for those of you that participate in the suckless community in some
> way: What do you run on your computer, and why?
I moved from gentoo to sabotage linux.
https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage
Having fun with it, but waiti
> The Makefile made libutil.a and libutf.a identical. Here is a patch to fix
> this.
>
> -$(LIB): $(LIBUTFOBJ) $(LIBUTILOBJ)
> +$(LIBUTF): $(LIBUTFOBJ)
> +$(AR) -r -c $@ $?
> +$(RANLIB) $@
> +
> +$(LIBUTIL): $(LIBUTILOBJ)
> $(AR) -r -c $@ $?
> $(RANLIB) $@
>
In fact
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 09:53:33AM -0500, Greg Reagle wrote:
>> Another way to provide style guidance is to refer to a particular source
>> file or project as an epitome or paragon, if such a paragon exists That
>> takes much less time than explicitly developing a style guide.
>
> Yes my initia
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 07:51:48PM +0100, k...@shike2.com wrote:
> Are you sure about that?. I know that C90 guarantees that any
> standard header will not include any other standard header (althought
> it is sad that a lot of compilers ignore this rule), but I have never
> read anything about dep
>> types
>> =
>> user defined types start with a capital letter
>> when possible typedef struct {} Name;
>
> Debatable. I'd like to hear more opinions on this.
For long time I followed the rule of kernel style of not using typedef
ever, but I changed it to the rule of using typedef only w
> system headers should come first, then a newline, then libc headers
> then a newline then local headers.
I usually do just the inverse, first libc headers and later system
headers.
> the libc headers are guaranteed to work regardless of the order of
> inclusion but need to come after the syst
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:01 AM, v4hn wrote:
> You meant to write "./-foo", didn't you?
Yes I did. My apologies.
emg
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Josh Lawrence wrote:
> Hello list,
>
Hey!
>
> So for those of you that participate in the suckless community in some
> way: What do you run on your computer, and why?
>
I used Debian stable for a long time because obviously it provided
stability in an environment
>> > By default I read if (!functioncall()) as 'if the function call
>> > failed'. I like the (strcmp(p, q) == 0) idiom because I don't fall
>> > into the trap of reading the statement as 'if the string comparison
>> > failed'. It is the one case I can think of where I prefer an explicit
>> > co
>
>> variables
>> =
>> declaration of pointer, * is adjacent to variable not type (as it's
>> part of the variable not the type, avoids int* i, j; etc.)
>
> This is a very smart point. I see this very often, even though not
> in sbase. a grouped declaration "int* a, b, c;" could falsl
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:35:12 +0100
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> It was agreed upon and dictated at the first slcon, that the next is
> to be held in Budapest.
Was there as reason or did the user trolls attending the last one
just have fun pissing off most of the suckless-contributors?
There's no reas
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Josh Lawrence wrote:
> So for those of you that participate in the suckless community in some
> way: What do you run on your computer, and why?
Crux at home, as I like it's simplicity coupled with customizability. Arch
at work solely because of the ease of mainte
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:19:15 -0600
Josh Lawrence wrote:
Hey Josh,
> So for those of you that participate in the suckless community in some
> way: What do you run on your computer, and why?
It's a matter of taste, but I absolutely prefer Gentoo for Linux stuff
because of its great flexibility.
Hello list,
I'm curious to know what flavor of *nix people on this list use on a
day-to-day basis. I've recall that some have mentioned using OpenBSD,
and I recently saw a reference to Fedora which, to be honest,
surprised me.
This thread came up in my search:
http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1006
Applied!!!
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014, at 09:55, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> Regarding your question on cp -f then the answer is not quite.
>
> cp -f will try to unlink the destination if it fails to open it for
> whatever
> reason.
And if the target is running and writing to a running binary is a
problem, openi
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 18 November 2014 19:25, Greg Reagle wrote:
>> Hello. Is there a particular reason that a combination of cp, mkdir,
>> and chmod are used rather than the install command, in several suckless
>> projects (in the install target of Makefile
Anselm R Garbe writes:
> Also it was agreed upon, that only contributors will have access to
> the next slcon, as the user appearance at the first conference seemed
> quite distracting.
Users are not suckless anyway.
--
Christian Neukirchenhttp://chneukirchen.org
On 18 November 2014 19:25, Greg Reagle wrote:
> Hello. Is there a particular reason that a combination of cp, mkdir,
> and chmod are used rather than the install command, in several suckless
> projects (in the install target of Makefile)?
To me the answer is rather obvious. install violates the
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:22:19AM -0500, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote:
> Quoth Dimitris Papastamos on Wed, Nov 19 2014 14:55 +:
> >On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 03:49:36PM -0500, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote:
> >>Quoth FRIGN on Tue, Nov 18 2014 19:30 +0100:
> >>>Well, install doesn't do any magic.
Quoth Dimitris Papastamos on Wed, Nov 19 2014 14:55 +:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 03:49:36PM -0500, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote:
Quoth FRIGN on Tue, Nov 18 2014 19:30 +0100:
>Well, install doesn't do any magic.
There is this.[1] But if the issue is unlinking a running target,
(a) how often i
On 19 November 2014 15:46, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:43:03PM +0100, Markus Teich wrote:
>> for structs I hate to use a typedef since it hides the fact that it is a
>> struct
>> beeing handled. If you propose that the only names starting with an uppercase
>> letter ar
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 03:49:36PM -0500, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote:
> Quoth FRIGN on Tue, Nov 18 2014 19:30 +0100:
> >Well, install doesn't do any magic.
>
> There is this.[1] But if the issue is unlinking a running target,
> (a) how often is this an issue, considering one will often be make
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:43:03PM +0100, Markus Teich wrote:
> for structs I hate to use a typedef since it hides the fact that it is a
> struct
> beeing handled. If you propose that the only names starting with an uppercase
> letter are structs, then this is kind of consistent in itself if you k
Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> As long as typedef is used sensible I am ok with the proposed naming
> convention.
Heyho,
for structs I hate to use a typedef since it hides the fact that it is a struct
beeing handled. If you propose that the only names starting with an uppercase
letter are structs,
On 19 November 2014 15:02, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 02:21:30PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> On 18 November 2014 11:52, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>> >> no block for single statement (optional block? always block? discuss)
>> > LICENSE header
>> > headers
>> > macros
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 02:21:30PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> >> types
> >> =
> >> user defined types start with a capital letter
> >> when possible typedef struct {} Name;
> >
> > Debatable. I'd like to hear more opinions on this.
>
> In most suckless code types always start with capital
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 02:21:30PM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 18 November 2014 11:52, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> >> no block for single statement (optional block? always block? discuss)
> > LICENSE header
> > headers
> > macros
> > types
> > function declarations
> > global vars
> > usage
Hi there,
On 8 November 2014 03:39, FRIGN wrote:
> there was Budapest floating around as a potential location for the
> next slcon, but everyone on IRC agreed that it literally makes no sense
> to go all the way to Hungary when most suckless-members are from
> Germany/Czech Republic/England.
> Mu
Thanks, applied.
-Anselm
On 15 November 2014 22:17, younix wrote:
> I know the Congress becomes more and more political, but there are still
> people like us, who are interested in hacking/using good old software
> with UNIX in mind.
I stopped attending CCC quite a while ago. This year I definitely won't attend.
Neverthe
Hi there,
first of all good effort. I'd like you to bring this style guide
forward to become the official suckless styleguide, not just sbase.
On 18 November 2014 11:52, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>> no block for single statement (optional block? always block? discuss)
> LICENSE header
> headers
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:47:31PM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:24:21 -0800
> Evan Gates wrote:
> > blocks
> > ==
> > all variable declarations at top of block
Why? In general I prefer declarations to be in the closest to the actual
usage (in the inner most scope).
> > stati
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 07:27:40PM -0500, Jean-Philippe Gagné Guay wrote:
> The Makefile made libutil.a and libutf.a identical. Here is a patch to fix
> this.
Thanks, applied.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 01:50:18PM -0800, Evan Gates wrote:
> This patch makes
> cat -- -foo
> cat the file ./foo and not stdin.
You meant to write "./-foo", didn't you?
v4hn
pgpnP77Se1hZh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Evan Gates wrote:
> This patch makes
> cat -- -foo
> cat the file ./foo and not stdin.
Wait ./foo or ./-foo ? IMHO it should output the latter.
cheers!
mar77i
62 matches
Mail list logo
