Re: RFC: fewer vim variants
Hi Luca, sorry about the Cc, but eye-balling -devel didn't reveal much activity from you, so I'm not sure if you track the list. M-F-T is set to d-d. I propose to restructure the vim package so that it builds fewer vim variants. I propose to have only the following: vim (aka vim-tiny; no interpreters, no docs) kvim (including all non-threaded interpreters; kde support; no docs) gvim (including all non-threaded interpreters; gtk2 support; no docs) vim-doc Let me know if this rubs you the wrong way. It' been a while since you sent that message. Any changes or progress? Upstream is at patchlevel 72 of release 6.2. As you know 6.2 has support for GTK+ 2, which is a significant point for people using UTF and/or XIM (and those of use who think antialiased text looks good). I'd very much like sarge to go out the door with this version of vim instead of the 6.1.474 we have right now (testing actually has 6.1.320) At the moment: * Perl is lost (that threaded thing) * Can't actually compile the package because ruby-dev isn't installable (wasn't there a -ruby mailing list? I can't say if this problem is transient or not, no bugs filed, and no noise in d-d-a) * The package's build system is not the most developer friendly thing in the world. AFAICR this is Wichert's legacy (uh, sorry, not poinging fingers, just trying to remember for how long I've intended to submit a patch :-( build-stamp-%: dh_testdir $(MAKE) -C $(SRCDIR) clean ^^ Evil! cd $(SRCDIR) CFLAGS=$(CFLAGS_$(*)) ./configure $(CFGFLAGS_$(*)) $(MAKE) -C $(SRCDIR) mv $(SRCDIR)/src/vim $(SRCDIR)/src/vim-$(*) touch $@ That really should read: build-stamp-%: dh_testdir rm -rf $(SRCDIR)-$(*) mkdir $(SRCDIR)-$(*) cd $(SRCDIR)-$(*) lndir $(SRCDIR) cd $(SRCDIR)-$(*) CFLAGS=$(CFLAGS_$(*)) ./configure $(CFGFLAGS_$(*)) $(MAKE) -C $(SRCDIR)-$(*) touch $@ It makes debugging so much easier... -- Marcelo
Re: RFC: fewer vim variants
* Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the moment: * Perl is lost (that threaded thing) As one of the new Co-Maintainers, I'm going to upload the package from http://p.d.o/~nobse/vim/ to experimental this evening. The perl issue is fixed in this package. * Can't actually compile the package because ruby-dev isn't installable (wasn't there a -ruby mailing list? I can't say if this problem is transient or not, no bugs filed, and no noise in d-d-a) I have compiled it against libruby1.6-dev, after I realized that ruby support doesn't work when compiled against libruby1.8-dev. * The package's build system is not the most developer friendly thing in the world. I noticed that. build-stamp-%: dh_testdir $(MAKE) -C $(SRCDIR) clean ^^ Evil! cd $(SRCDIR) CFLAGS=$(CFLAGS_$(*)) ./configure $(CFGFLAGS_$(*)) $(MAKE) -C $(SRCDIR) mv $(SRCDIR)/src/vim $(SRCDIR)/src/vim-$(*) touch $@ That really should read: build-stamp-%: dh_testdir rm -rf $(SRCDIR)-$(*) mkdir $(SRCDIR)-$(*) cd $(SRCDIR)-$(*) lndir $(SRCDIR) cd $(SRCDIR)-$(*) CFLAGS=$(CFLAGS_$(*)) ./configure $(CFGFLAGS_$(*)) $(MAKE) -C $(SRCDIR)-$(*) touch $@ It makes debugging so much easier... You're right, thanks. I'm going to change this before uploading the package to experimental.
Re: RFC: fewer vim variants
On Sunday 15 June 2003 17:39, Marc Wilson wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:23:34AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: What about a version _with_ all non-threaded interpreters, but _without_ gtk2/kde support? That would be console Vim, from either package. The GUI doesn't add so much to it that you'd really feel it. Just never run gvim or vim -g. :) I guess the main objection is dependencies: why should I install kde or gtk libs just to run a console vim with perl? -- vbi -- random link of the day: http://fortytwo.ch/sienapei/pohmogun pgphdBS4sbmLR.pgp Description: signature
Re: RFC: fewer vim variants
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Hello people, I propose to restructure the vim package so that it builds fewer vim variants. I propose to have only the following: vim (aka vim-tiny; no interpreters, no docs) kvim (including all non-threaded interpreters; kde support; no docs) gvim (including all non-threaded interpreters; gtk2 support; no docs) vim-doc Let me know if this rubs you the wrong way. No, as long as I get gtk-vim without gnome. :-)
Re: RFC: fewer vim variants
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Luca Filipozzi wrote: Hello people, I propose to restructure the vim package so that it builds fewer vim variants. I propose to have only the following: vim (aka vim-tiny; no interpreters, no docs) kvim (including all non-threaded interpreters; kde support; no docs) gvim (including all non-threaded interpreters; gtk2 support; no docs) vim-doc Let me know if this rubs you the wrong way. I think it's a good idea to merge the interpreters support. But concerning the gnome support I think it would be better to have a seperate package with gnome support as I did in the vim 6.2 patch (e.g., gvim-gnome ?) If I'm not mistaken, the vim gnome support adds mostly session management (when you login all your vim windows you had open on the previous logout appear in the same positions and the same files), which is something really handy. But of course, to add a dependency on gnome for the non-gnome users would be too much. Therefore two packages... José Fonseca PS: I tried to reply via the news gateway but it didn't fall through. Sorry if there's a dup.
