FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-16-2009, 06:16 AM
Tobias Kieslich
 
Default new vi/vim/gvim

Hi guys,


just thought I'll let you know that the vi/vim/gvim layout will
change again. After some slightly heated discussion and some thinking, I
came to the conclusion that we could benefit from some different layout.
I'll spare you all the reasons, here is some reading if you are really
into it:
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13109
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13239
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13240

The new layout is pretty much settled:
nvi/core, provides vi,ex and view binary, really tiny
vim/extra, only perl support, provides runtime, no X, no whistles
gvim/extra, perl,python+ruby and gtk2, depends on vim, replaces the vim
binary(as symlink) on install so your terminal vim is more powerful

Benefits:
- changes of (n)vi in core don't stall vim updates in extra
- no vi runtime in core cuts down the install size (about 8MB
compressed, 28 deflated)
- we have a truely lightweight vim, it's something people really seem
to want

things left to figure out:

I really, really hope the gvim package provides a binary that can
be started as vim and runs in a terminal on a computer with no X/gtk2
installed ... I doubt it though. The reason is that I like to provide a
fully scriptable vim for sysadmins that requires no X/GTK. Otherwise I
could build the vim package with perl AND python support. It's not a big
deal but it bumps the binary size from 1.5 MB to 4.5 ... that pretty
big.

Thoughts, opinions, complaints?

-T
 
Old 02-16-2009, 03:58 PM
Aaron Griffin
 
Default new vi/vim/gvim

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Tobias Kieslich <tobias@justdreams.de> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
>
> just thought I'll let you know that the vi/vim/gvim layout will
> change again. After some slightly heated discussion and some thinking, I
> came to the conclusion that we could benefit from some different layout.
> I'll spare you all the reasons, here is some reading if you are really
> into it:
> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13109
> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13239
> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13240
>
> The new layout is pretty much settled:
> nvi/core, provides vi,ex and view binary, really tiny
> vim/extra, only perl support, provides runtime, no X, no whistles
> gvim/extra, perl,python+ruby and gtk2, depends on vim, replaces the vim
> binary(as symlink) on install so your terminal vim is more powerful
>
> Benefits:
> - changes of (n)vi in core don't stall vim updates in extra
> - no vi runtime in core cuts down the install size (about 8MB
> compressed, 28 deflated)
> - we have a truely lightweight vim, it's something people really seem
> to want
>
> things left to figure out:
>
> I really, really hope the gvim package provides a binary that can
> be started as vim and runs in a terminal on a computer with no X/gtk2
> installed ... I doubt it though. The reason is that I like to provide a
> fully scriptable vim for sysadmins that requires no X/GTK. Otherwise I
> could build the vim package with perl AND python support. It's not a big
> deal but it bumps the binary size from 1.5 MB to 4.5 ... that pretty
> big.

What if we have the gvim package optdepend on gtk and the like?
"Install these for GUI support" ? I dunno if that would work, but it's
an idea.
 
Old 02-16-2009, 04:32 PM
Tobias Kieslich
 
Default new vi/vim/gvim

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Aaron Griffin wrote:
>
> What if we have the gvim package optdepend on gtk and the like?
> "Install these for GUI support" ? I dunno if that would work, but it's
> an idea.

I thought exactly that, but a quick test on twm with pacman -Rd gtk2
gave me a missing .so file when I tried the vim binary. So I guess
that's a no. Booo.

-T
 
Old 02-18-2009, 04:22 PM
Aaron Griffin
 
Default new vi/vim/gvim

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Tobias Kieslich <tobias@justdreams.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>
>> What if we have the gvim package optdepend on gtk and the like?
>> "Install these for GUI support" ? I dunno if that would work, but it's
>> an idea.
>
> I thought exactly that, but a quick test on twm with pacman -Rd gtk2
> gave me a missing .so file when I tried the vim binary. So I guess
> that's a no. Booo.

So my only problem with this is the original reason why we went to
this scheme: too many people complained that they could not get a
featureful vim without installing gvim and all the deps. Dolby
suggested on one of the bug reports, to stick with the current split
and just rename "vi" -> "vim-core" in a similar manner as dbus. It's
not as barebones as nvi, but that's not a terrible thing.

I don't know a proper solution here, but I'm just pointing out that
we'd go back where we started.
 
Old 03-11-2009, 04:01 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default new vi/vim/gvim

Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Tobias Kieslich <tobias@justdreams.de> wrote:


On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Aaron Griffin wrote:


What if we have the gvim package optdepend on gtk and the like?
"Install these for GUI support" ? I dunno if that would work, but it's
an idea.


I thought exactly that, but a quick test on twm with pacman -Rd gtk2
gave me a missing .so file when I tried the vim binary. So I guess
that's a no. Booo.



So my only problem with this is the original reason why we went to
this scheme: too many people complained that they could not get a
featureful vim without installing gvim and all the deps. Dolby
suggested on one of the bug reports, to stick with the current split
and just rename "vi" -> "vim-core" in a similar manner as dbus. It's
not as barebones as nvi, but that's not a terrible thing.

I don't know a proper solution here, but I'm just pointing out that
we'd go back where we started.



Has anything been decided with this? Apparently vim needs a patch to
build against the latest ruby which I was going to attempt updating soon.


Allan
 
Old 03-11-2009, 05:27 AM
Tobias Kieslich
 
Default new vi/vim/gvim

>
> Has anything been decided with this? Apparently vim needs a patch to
> build against the latest ruby which I was going to attempt updating soon.

I'm just trying to give it a whirl on a testing box. The main issue is
that the old package created a symlink that is not tracked by the
version control at all. So before people can update to the new packages,
they will have to remove one or two symlinks manually, which is ugly.

-T
 
Old 03-11-2009, 09:14 AM
James Rayner
 
Default new vi/vim/gvim

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Tobias Kieslich <tobias@justdreams.de> wrote:
>>
>> Has anything been decided with this? *Apparently vim needs a patch to
>> build against the latest ruby which I was going to attempt updating soon.
>
> I'm just trying to give it a whirl on a testing box. The main issue is
> that the old package created a symlink that is not tracked by the
> version control at all. So before people can update to the new packages,
> they will have to remove one or two symlinks manually, which is ugly.

Maybe in: vim.install pre_install(), remove the files if they're
symlinks? I know it's yucky too.
 
Old 03-11-2009, 03:21 PM
Aaron Griffin
 
Default new vi/vim/gvim

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:14 AM, James Rayner <iphitus@iphitus.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Tobias Kieslich <tobias@justdreams.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Has anything been decided with this? *Apparently vim needs a patch to
>>> build against the latest ruby which I was going to attempt updating soon.
>>
>> I'm just trying to give it a whirl on a testing box. The main issue is
>> that the old package created a symlink that is not tracked by the
>> version control at all. So before people can update to the new packages,
>> they will have to remove one or two symlinks manually, which is ugly.
>
> Maybe in: *vim.install pre_install(), remove the files if they're
> symlinks? I know it's yucky too.

The problem is that pacman does file conflict checking before
pre_install is called
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:32 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org