On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 13:47 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Steve Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [...] > > > > These are the filenames, folding brackets and all! > > This is an example of not following the directions, which state: you > need a new vimball plugin!
Somebody needs to communicate this to the Red Hat/Fedora Core bugzilla, I'm using the standard, up-to-date distro, now 7.0.201. That means so are *a lot* of other people. > * the vimball that comes with 7.0 had bugs > * one of the bugs requires one to completely remove the old vimball > (and the same bug afflicts netrw, too -- you have to completely > remote the old netrw) Overwriting is not enough? If you can tell me specifically what files needs to be removed prior, then I can make my Windows installer do this. > * then install the new vimball (or netrw) > * the new installation will go to the first writable directory on > your runtimepath, which is generally your personal .vim/ directory Do you know where on Windows? Ever in a system/program folder? > * the vimball is simpler to use than an old zip file (after the > buggy one is no longer afflicting things). It requires Vim to use, rather than any one of a dozen package readers/viewers. This does not seem simpler to me. (Current case as just one example.) > I agree with Tony -- an exe is a dangerous thing to have to expect > people to run . It is equally as dangerous as a vimball. Either can be made to do destructive things, and neither's internals are immediately comprehendable to determine their safety. > Perhaps one should have a checksum (md5?) so that people can be > assured if they wish to be that the exe is the one you made. Pgp > signatures would be good, too. Of course, that all makes it more > difficult to use than simple text files. The Nullsoft Installer has a built-in integrity check which makes md5 redundant. I'm also trusting SourceForge's security system to maintain the integrity of the file. Obviously, we could put even more checks in place (like a pgp sig), but at some point this all becomes overly complicated and more overhead than it's worth. Chances are much better that the author would cause damage by unintentionally breaking something anyway. :) -- Steve Hall [ digitect dancingpaper com ]
