dwm and chromium

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

dwm and chromium

Ted Unangst-6
It annoys me that chrome doesn't start on screen 9 like firefox does.
(Especially since it takes a few seconds to start, so I'm always surprised
when the window finally appears and disrupts my current screen.)
Easily fixed.


Index: Makefile
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ports/x11/dwm/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u -p -r1.30 Makefile
--- Makefile 3 Jun 2018 16:57:11 -0000 1.30
+++ Makefile 30 Jan 2019 03:43:52 -0000
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ COMMENT= dynamic window manager
 
 V= 6.1
 DISTNAME= dwm-${V}
-REVISION= 2
+REVISION= 3
 
 CATEGORIES= x11
 
Index: patches/patch-config_def_h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ports/x11/dwm/patches/patch-config_def_h,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -p -r1.12 patch-config_def_h
--- patches/patch-config_def_h 24 Oct 2016 22:46:54 -0000 1.12
+++ patches/patch-config_def_h 30 Jan 2019 03:43:52 -0000
@@ -25,10 +25,11 @@ $OpenBSD: patch-config_def_h,v 1.12 2016
  static const unsigned int borderpx  = 1;        /* border pixel of windows */
  static const unsigned int snap      = 32;       /* snap pixel */
  static const int showbar            = 1;        /* 0 means no bar */
-@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ static const Rule rules[] = {
+@@ -27,6 +27,9 @@ static const Rule rules[] = {
  /* class      instance    title       tags mask     isfloating   monitor */
  { "Gimp",     NULL,       NULL,       0,            1,           -1 },
  { "Firefox",  NULL,       NULL,       1 << 8,       0,           -1 },
++ { "Chromium", NULL,       NULL,       1 << 8,       0,           -1 },
 + { "Xonix",    NULL,       NULL,       0,            1,           -1 },
 + { NULL,       NULL,       "glxgears", 0,            1,           -1 },
  };

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: dwm and chromium

Nayden Markatchev
+1 fwiw I have this change locally.

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 20:46, Ted Unangst <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It annoys me that chrome doesn't start on screen 9 like firefox does.
> (Especially since it takes a few seconds to start, so I'm always surprised
> when the window finally appears and disrupts my current screen.)
> Easily fixed.
>
>
> Index: Makefile
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/ports/x11/dwm/Makefile,v
> retrieving revision 1.30
> diff -u -p -r1.30 Makefile
> --- Makefile    3 Jun 2018 16:57:11 -0000       1.30
> +++ Makefile    30 Jan 2019 03:43:52 -0000
> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ COMMENT=                dynamic window manager
>
>  V=                     6.1
>  DISTNAME=              dwm-${V}
> -REVISION=              2
> +REVISION=              3
>
>  CATEGORIES=            x11
>
> Index: patches/patch-config_def_h
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/ports/x11/dwm/patches/patch-config_def_h,v
> retrieving revision 1.12
> diff -u -p -r1.12 patch-config_def_h
> --- patches/patch-config_def_h  24 Oct 2016 22:46:54 -0000      1.12
> +++ patches/patch-config_def_h  30 Jan 2019 03:43:52 -0000
> @@ -25,10 +25,11 @@ $OpenBSD: patch-config_def_h,v 1.12 2016
>   static const unsigned int borderpx  = 1;        /* border pixel of
> windows */
>   static const unsigned int snap      = 32;       /* snap pixel */
>   static const int showbar            = 1;        /* 0 means no bar */
> -@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ static const Rule rules[] = {
> +@@ -27,6 +27,9 @@ static const Rule rules[] = {
>         /* class      instance    title       tags mask     isfloating
>  monitor */
>         { "Gimp",     NULL,       NULL,       0,            1,
>  -1 },
>         { "Firefox",  NULL,       NULL,       1 << 8,       0,
>  -1 },
> ++      { "Chromium", NULL,       NULL,       1 << 8,       0,
>  -1 },
>  +      { "Xonix",    NULL,       NULL,       0,            1,
>  -1 },
>  +      { NULL,       NULL,       "glxgears", 0,            1,
>  -1 },
>   };
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: dwm and chromium

Klemens Nanni-2
In reply to this post by Ted Unangst-6
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:44:55PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> It annoys me that chrome doesn't start on screen 9 like firefox does.
> (Especially since it takes a few seconds to start, so I'm always surprised
> when the window finally appears and disrupts my current screen.)
> Easily fixed.
Which rules to add to or remove from upstream's set as well as the
specified tags have great potential for bike shedding.

Since dwm is designed to be patched and recompiled for personal taste,
I tend to avoid such changes in our port and leave them to users.

On the other hand, the firefox rule has been there for ages and doing
the same with chromium makes sense consistency wise.

That said, no objections from me, but please refrain from further
config patches or send them directly upstream.

Does that make sense?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: dwm and chromium

Solene Rapenne
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 07:21:48PM +0100, Klemens Nanni wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:44:55PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > It annoys me that chrome doesn't start on screen 9 like firefox does.
> > (Especially since it takes a few seconds to start, so I'm always surprised
> > when the window finally appears and disrupts my current screen.)
> > Easily fixed.
> Which rules to add to or remove from upstream's set as well as the
> specified tags have great potential for bike shedding.
>
> Since dwm is designed to be patched and recompiled for personal taste,
> I tend to avoid such changes in our port and leave them to users.
>
> On the other hand, the firefox rule has been there for ages and doing
> the same with chromium makes sense consistency wise.
>
> That said, no objections from me, but please refrain from further
> config patches or send them directly upstream.
>
> Does that make sense?
>

Should we add Iridium too then to stay consistent with chromium and
firefox? From statistics[1] of my small samples (17 amd64 6.4-current
machines), I see 5 iridium, 7 chromium and 13 firefox installed.

[1] https://pkgstat-openbsd.perso.pw/index.php?osversion=6.4-current&arch=amd64

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: dwm and chromium

Klemens Nanni-2
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 08:02:07PM +0100, Solene Rapenne wrote:
> Should we add Iridium too then to stay consistent with chromium and
> firefox?
They're the same: see `xprop WM_CLASS', then click on both an Iridium
and Chromium window.

        WM_CLASS(STRING) = "chromium-browser", "Chromium-browser"

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: dwm and chromium

Stuart Henderson
In reply to this post by Klemens Nanni-2
On 2019/01/31 19:21, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:44:55PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > It annoys me that chrome doesn't start on screen 9 like firefox does.
> > (Especially since it takes a few seconds to start, so I'm always surprised
> > when the window finally appears and disrupts my current screen.)
> > Easily fixed.
> Which rules to add to or remove from upstream's set as well as the
> specified tags have great potential for bike shedding.

Like: why would you want both browsers opening on the same screen? ;-)

> Since dwm is designed to be patched and recompiled for personal taste,
> I tend to avoid such changes in our port and leave them to users.
>
> On the other hand, the firefox rule has been there for ages and doing
> the same with chromium makes sense consistency wise.
>
> That said, no objections from me, but please refrain from further
> config patches or send them directly upstream.
>
> Does that make sense?
>