Dynamic Window Manager install with patch(es)

[Andy Zammy]

I see, then in that case I don't think I'm doing anything wrong. Here is the
output of make:
------------------------------------------------------------
# make
You can build dwm with your own config.h using the DWM_CONF knob:
make DWM_CONF=/path/to/dwm/config.h install clean
Note: Pre-5.6 config.h-files no longer work.
===>  License MIT accepted by the user
===>  Found saved configuration for dwm-5.9
===>  Extracting for dwm-5.9
=> SHA256 Checksum OK for dwm-5.9.tar.gz.
===>  Patching for dwm-5.9
===>  Applying FreeBSD patches for dwm-5.9
File to patch: files/patch-defaultopacity
No file found--skip this patch? [n] n
File to patch: /usr/home/user/Downloads/dwm.defaultopacity.patch
patch: **** malformed patch at line 9: @@ -52,6 +54,9 @@
=> Patch patch-defaultopacity failed to apply cleanly.
=> Patch(es) patch-Makefile patch-config.mk applied cleanly.
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/x11-wm/dwm.
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/x11-wm/dwm.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Like I say I don't know how patch or diff work but it's strange how it needs
pointing to the patch again?

On 22 September 2011 08:05, Matthew Seaman
<m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>wrote:

> On 22/09/2011 00:51, Andy Zammy wrote:
> > According to the instructions listed here:
> http://dwm.suckless.org/patches/ I
> > figured I'm to use the "tarball method" as that's how ports fetches dwm.
> I
> > tried applying the method to /usr/ports/x11-wm/dwm/work/dwm-5.9 but it
> > didn't work (malformed patch).
>
> This is pretty much the correct approach.  Although to do it in the best
> ports fashion, you'ld save the patch file to
> ${PORTSDIR}/x11-wm/dwm/files/patch-something-or-other and then the ports
> would patch the sources for you automatically any time you rebuilt the
> port.  Don't worry about that for the time being though.  Just getting
> the patch to apply by hand is a good first step.
>
> It's quite normal for ports to apply patches this way -- the dwm port
> already has patches for Makefile and config.mk.  If your patch attempts
> to patch those same files it could fail.  However the error message
> would be 'patch failed to apply' which is obviously not what you're
> getting.
>
> The big question is why the patch you already have appears to be
> malformed.  How did you obtain it?  Can you repeat the process paying
> attention to any error messages and so forth and see if that works better?
>
> > I've used ubuntu for about a year but for all intents and purposes I'm
> still
> > a beginner with UNIX-like, and I've never used patch or diff before. But,
> I
> > remembered that these are ports and wonder if these patches would work on
> > FreeBSD source? Would I have to apply the patch to the tarball while it's
> in
> > distfiles before it gets 'ported' to freebsd? Or am I talking crazy?
>
> No -- modifying the tarball is possible, but as the effect is exactly
> the same as what you tried above and as it will then fail the checksum
> tests, well, it's not worth the bother.
>
> patch and diff at this level work in exactly the same way on just about
> any unix (eg FreeBSD) or unix-alike (Linux including Ubuntu) and
> probably a few weird OSes you've never heard of.  Like I said, applying
> patches is a common action the ports will do for you.
>
>        Cheers,
>
>        Matthew
>
> --
> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                   7 Priory Courtyard
>                                                  Flat 3
> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey     Ramsgate
> JID: matthew at infracaninophile.co.uk               Kent, CT11 9PW
>
>