also sprach James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.10.16.1421 +0100]:
> Yes, it was included in 1:7.1-135+1. I was just noting the actual
> patch that fixed the bug in case someone has to use a hypothetical
> 7.1-080 package from distribution X. If they check for
> has('patch073') instead of patch(
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:42:44PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.10.16.1252 +0100]:
> > 'patch073' was the actual patch that fixed the bug, so that would be a
> > more distribution agnostic check for those of us that have to use more
> > than just
also sprach James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.10.16.1252 +0100]:
> 'patch073' was the actual patch that fixed the bug, so that would be a
> more distribution agnostic check for those of us that have to use more
> than just Debian systems.
And patch073 was not included in 1:7.1-135+1? That seem
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 12:09:36PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.10.11.1625 +0100]:
> > set et pi
>
> if has('patch135')
'patch073' was the actual patch that fixed the bug, so that would be a
more distribution agnostic check for those of us
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.10.11.1625 +0100]:
> set et pi
if has('patch135')
set pi
endif
for those who can't upgrade.
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org
Package: vim
Version: 1:7.1-056+2
Severity: grave
Grave since I've lost data, though not a lot thanks to .swp files.
Verified with 1:7.1-056+2 on i386 and amd64 by me.
and
< jamessan> madduck: I've reproduce in vim.full and vim.basic
and
< mgedmin> yes, gutsy, vim-gnome 1:7.1-056+2ubuntu2
# sc
6 matches
Mail list logo
