Re: [arch-general] Any objections to asking vim to fix PKGBUILD syntax highlighting?
> (Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 06:26:45AM -0500) james harvey via arch-general : > > I'd like to post the following issue at: > > https://github.com/vim/vim/issues/new > > > > Wanted to see if there were any objections from staff, like if even > > though the error highlighting is technically wrong, if it's desired to > > be left as-is to discourage 'pkgname' being a single element array or > > 'SKIP' usage when inappropriate, etc. > > Hi James, I think you’re targetting the wrong project: > immae at immae ~ $ pacman -Qo /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax/PKGBUILD.vim > /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax/PKGBUILD.vim is owned by pacman-contrib 1.1.0-1 > > PKGBUILD probably doesn’t exist in vim’s project ;) > -- > Ismael One of the team intends to do a complete rewrite the syntax file with a "Vim master". :) -- Best, polyzen signature.asc Description: signature
Re: [arch-general] Any particular reason for daily imagemagick updates?
On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 07:25:10PM -0600, David C. Rankin wrote: > On 03/05/2019 05:39 PM, Joel Klinghed wrote: > > Well, the changelog (https://www.imagemagick.org/script/changelog.php) > > is fairly clear about the upstream release cycle: > > > > 2019-03-05 7.0.8-32 > > 2019-03-04 7.0.8-31 > > 2019-03-03 7.0.8-30 > > 2019-02-28 7.0.8-29 > > Yes, that seems to be more a side-effect of the ease of creating a release on > git rather than the historical deliberative process of what to include, patch > and the normal Q that takes place during the 'alpha', 'beta' stages before > we reach a 'release'. > > The changelog seems to reflect that Arch is NOT following the stable branch of > imagemagick. > > The latest release on the "Master" branch is: > > Release build (7.0.8-27) (released 24 days ago) > https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/releases/tag/7.0.8-27 > > Why are we not tracking Master? > > -- > David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. >From https://www.imagemagick.org/ "The current release is ImageMagick 7.0.8-32." -- Felix M. Cobos
Re: [arch-general] Any particular reason for daily imagemagick updates?
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:25 PM David C. Rankin wrote: > > On 03/05/2019 05:39 PM, Joel Klinghed wrote: > > Well, the changelog (https://www.imagemagick.org/script/changelog.php) > > is fairly clear about the upstream release cycle: > > > > 2019-03-05 7.0.8-32 > > 2019-03-04 7.0.8-31 > > 2019-03-03 7.0.8-30 > > 2019-02-28 7.0.8-29 > > Yes, that seems to be more a side-effect of the ease of creating a release on > git rather than the historical deliberative process of what to include, patch > and the normal Q that takes place during the 'alpha', 'beta' stages before > we reach a 'release'. > > The changelog seems to reflect that Arch is NOT following the stable branch of > imagemagick. > > The latest release on the "Master" branch is: > > Release build (7.0.8-27) (released 24 days ago) > https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/releases/tag/7.0.8-27 > > Why are we not tracking Master? I don't think this is accurate. Why do you say this? Where are you seeing that -28+ isn't considered stable? I'm taking all of this to mean ImageMagick just hasn't remembered to tag release numbers on github since -27. The ChangeLog doesn't indicate 28+ isn't stable, and looking at their past github tags, it's not looking to me like they have a stable/unstable concept. The ChangeLog indicates -32 is git commit 58d9c4692, which is on the github master branch, currently 4 back from HEAD.
Re: [arch-general] Any particular reason for daily imagemagick updates?
On 03/05/2019 05:39 PM, Joel Klinghed wrote: > Well, the changelog (https://www.imagemagick.org/script/changelog.php) > is fairly clear about the upstream release cycle: > > 2019-03-05 7.0.8-32 > 2019-03-04 7.0.8-31 > 2019-03-03 7.0.8-30 > 2019-02-28 7.0.8-29 Yes, that seems to be more a side-effect of the ease of creating a release on git rather than the historical deliberative process of what to include, patch and the normal Q that takes place during the 'alpha', 'beta' stages before we reach a 'release'. The changelog seems to reflect that Arch is NOT following the stable branch of imagemagick. The latest release on the "Master" branch is: Release build (7.0.8-27) (released 24 days ago) https://github.com/ImageMagick/ImageMagick/releases/tag/7.0.8-27 Why are we not tracking Master? -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Re: [arch-general] Any particular reason for daily imagemagick updates?
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 17:30:24 -0600 "David C. Rankin" wrote: > All, > > More an observation than a problem, but is there any security > reason for the flood of imagemagick updates, or are we basically > getting nightlies every time a commit is pushed? Example: > > 5 hours Update to 7.0.8.32arojas > 27 hoursUpdate to 7.0.8.31arojas > 2 days Update to 7.0.8.30arojas > 5 days Update to 7.0.8.29arojas > > That's 4 in the past 5 days alone and two within 24 hours. It's > small enough that updates are no issue, it just seems odd that the > upstream release cycle is really that frequent. > Well, the changelog (https://www.imagemagick.org/script/changelog.php) is fairly clear about the upstream release cycle: 2019-03-05 7.0.8-32 2019-03-04 7.0.8-31 2019-03-03 7.0.8-30 2019-02-28 7.0.8-29 /JK
[arch-general] Any particular reason for daily imagemagick updates?
All, More an observation than a problem, but is there any security reason for the flood of imagemagick updates, or are we basically getting nightlies every time a commit is pushed? Example: 5 hours Update to 7.0.8.32 arojas 27 hoursUpdate to 7.0.8.31 arojas 2 days Update to 7.0.8.30 arojas 5 days Update to 7.0.8.29 arojas That's 4 in the past 5 days alone and two within 24 hours. It's small enough that updates are no issue, it just seems odd that the upstream release cycle is really that frequent. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Re: [arch-general] Any objections to asking vim to fix PKGBUILD syntax highlighting?
On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 12:30:54PM +0100, Ismael Bouya wrote: > (Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 06:26:45AM -0500) james harvey via arch-general : > > I'd like to post the following issue at: > > https://github.com/vim/vim/issues/new > > > > Wanted to see if there were any objections from staff, like if even > > though the error highlighting is technically wrong, if it's desired to > > be left as-is to discourage 'pkgname' being a single element array or > > 'SKIP' usage when inappropriate, etc. > > Hi James, I think you’re targetting the wrong project: > immae@immae ~ $ pacman -Qo /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax/PKGBUILD.vim > /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax/PKGBUILD.vim is owned by pacman-contrib 1.1.0-1 > > PKGBUILD probably doesn’t exist in vim’s project ;) It does, but it's just a simple alias to set filetype to bash. I think some of us also discovered this recently and was pleasantly surprised :) https://github.com/vim/vim/blob/master/runtime/filetype.vim#L1470 -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Any objections to asking vim to fix PKGBUILD syntax highlighting?
(Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 06:26:45AM -0500) james harvey via arch-general : > I'd like to post the following issue at: https://github.com/vim/vim/issues/new > > Wanted to see if there were any objections from staff, like if even > though the error highlighting is technically wrong, if it's desired to > be left as-is to discourage 'pkgname' being a single element array or > 'SKIP' usage when inappropriate, etc. Hi James, I think you’re targetting the wrong project: immae@immae ~ $ pacman -Qo /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax/PKGBUILD.vim /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax/PKGBUILD.vim is owned by pacman-contrib 1.1.0-1 PKGBUILD probably doesn’t exist in vim’s project ;) -- Ismael signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[arch-general] Any objections to asking vim to fix PKGBUILD syntax highlighting?
I'd like to post the following issue at: https://github.com/vim/vim/issues/new Wanted to see if there were any objections from staff, like if even though the error highlighting is technically wrong, if it's desired to be left as-is to discourage 'pkgname' being a single element array or 'SKIP' usage when inappropriate, etc. (Below is in github markup.) Subject: Incorrect error highlighting in syntax/PKGBUILD.vim `vimfiles/syntax/PKGBUILD.vim` highlights two things as errors that it should not. As an example: the [valid official PKGBUILD file for gdb](https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/plain/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/gdb) pkgname=(gdb gdb-common) ... sha1sums=(... 'SKIP') Specifically, it highlights in: `pkgname` the `(`, ` `, and `)`; and `sha1sums` the `SKIP`. `pkgname` is usually not an array, but in the case of split packages, it can be an array. See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#pkgname `sha1sums` is quite often a sha, but it can be `SKIP`, especially when given a `.sig` file or a git repo. See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#Integrity `SKIP` is valid in: `md5sums`, `sha1sums`, `sha224sums`, `sha256sums`, `sha384sums`, and `sha512sums`.
