Re: default ctwm config thoughts

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:53:28AM +0200, Rhialto wrote:
> On Tue 22 Sep 2020 at 17:39:32 +0100, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 14:13, Martin Husemann <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 03:10:22PM +0200, Olaf Seibert wrote:
> > > > The current release version (ctwm-4.0.3) has support for the --replace
> > > > option, which is the ICCCM way for a window manager to take over
> > > > from another. So it is "take control away", not "give control away".
> > >
> > > Could you import that version or are there any reasons not to?
> > >
> > > Martin
> > 
> > The version from the git mirror builds right away on my system; it
> > needs a slight modification to the default .ctwmrc to avoid some
> > warnings, otherwise works; I can't get it from the original repo, as
> > bzr is not functional at all, on -current at least. It shouldn't be
> > much of an exercise to import it, methinks.
> 
> In the curregt git/bzr version, the build system has been completely
> reworked with cmake, but there is no reason why normal Makefiles
> shouldn't work. Most of the configuration checks done by cmake are
> unneeded in NetBSD's tree.
> 
> (devel/breezy should work if bzr doesn't)

We bypass upstream's build system entirely anyway, at most we have
to rework what our makefiles define.

mrg's offered to help with updating - I'm not too experienced with
the cvs import method for updating things on a branch, and don't want
to break anything. But yes, there's no reason not to update!