I am thinking, based on some input from Danek, the best approach at this point is to create an additional gvim package, that basically just provides a gvim binary, and relies on the vim package for everything else. (Basically the original plan)
(For know forgoing the additional language bindings until we get a chance to test dynamic bindings. I will start research on that front in the mean time.) Thanks, Brian On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not really sure the emacs solution is the right technical solution > for vim. By default when you build vim with gvim, pretty much > everything is a symlink to the vim binary, and the vim binary uses $0 > to determine how it was called. > > In other words the current vim has the following interfaces: > /usr/bin/rview Uncommitted Symbolic link > location (link to vim) > /usr/bin/rvim Uncommitted Symbolic link > location (link to vim) > /usr/bin/vimdiff Uncommitted Symbolic link > location (link to vim) > /usr/bin/vimtutor Uncommitted Symbolic link > location (link to vim) > > /usr/bin/vim Uncommitted Executable location > /usr/bin/xxd Uncommitted Executable location > > /usr/share/vim/vim70 Uncommitted Directory for bundled > extensions > /usr/share/vim/vimfiles Uncommitted Directory for unbundled > extensions > > In a "typical" install from source gvim would just be another symlink > pointing at the vim binary that has graphics support compiled in. > > My feeling is that on an individual system people are going to want to > install a binary with graphics support, or one without. (Whether it > runs with graphics support is already addressed by how you call it, > which seems a bit different than in the case of emacs. IE: there is no > gemacs symlink to emacs) > > These issues also lead me to question whether linking gtk is > appropriate. (vs. lowest common denominator X11). (I have ruled out > linking to gnome itself, but that is on the table for discussion). > > Since I plan to list all interfaces as Uncommitted anyway, I don't > know if a final resolution of alternate packages is required to submit > this case, but it might be a good time to discuss.) > > -Brian > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Nicolas Williams > <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote: >> See PSARC/2008/494 GNU emacs, which uses a script for 'emacs' to choose >> betwee X11 and non-X11 variants. >> >> Nico >> -- >> > > -- > - Brian Gupta > > http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ > > http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_New_User_FAQ > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_New_User_FAQ
