This is just packaging cleanup, and should have no subtantive impact on
the functioning of vi. Mostly just looking for an extra sanity check
here, nothing specific to test.
See FS#18215 for details. Highlights:
* removed obsolete gcc bug workaround portion of du.patch, renamed to
navkeys.patch
* used make options rather than manual means of configuration wherever
possible
- P
03-12-2010, 05:02 PM
Paul Mattal
vi-050325-3 (1 for each arch)
On 03/07/2010 02:41 PM, Paul Mattal wrote:
Please signoff 1 for each arch.
This is just packaging cleanup, and should have no subtantive impact on
the functioning of vi. Mostly just looking for an extra sanity check
here, nothing specific to test.
See FS#18215 for details. Highlights:
* removed obsolete gcc bug workaround portion of du.patch, renamed to
navkeys.patch
* used make options rather than manual means of configuration wherever
possible
Anyone? Still need 1 signoff for each. Install vi, make sure you can
still use it to edit stuff.
Here's the diff on the PKGBUILD cleanup, if you wish to examine:
Am 07.03.2010 20:41, schrieb Paul Mattal:
> Please signoff 1 for each arch.
>
> This is just packaging cleanup, and should have no subtantive impact on
> the functioning of vi. Mostly just looking for an extra sanity check
> here, nothing specific to test.
>
> See FS#18215 for details. Highlights:
>
> * removed obsolete gcc bug workaround portion of du.patch, renamed to
> navkeys.patch
> * used make options rather than manual means of configuration wherever
> possible
>
> - P
>
I used this, but when I use the arrow keys while in insert mode, it
prints "D" instead of moving around. Is that normal?
03-12-2010, 09:17 PM
Aaron Griffin
vi-050325-3 (1 for each arch)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Am 07.03.2010 20:41, schrieb Paul Mattal:
>> Please signoff 1 for each arch.
>>
>> This is just packaging cleanup, and should have no subtantive impact on
>> the functioning of vi. Mostly just looking for an extra sanity check
>> here, nothing specific to test.
>>
>> See FS#18215 for details. Highlights:
>>
>> * removed obsolete gcc bug workaround portion of du.patch, renamed to
>> navkeys.patch
>> * used make options rather than manual means of configuration wherever
>> possible
>>
>> - P
>>
>
> I used this, but when I use the arrow keys while in insert mode, it
> prints "D" instead of moving around. Is that normal?
That's the way crappy vi's behave on all flavor of unicies. It's
annoying as hell.
What is this "navkeys" patch? It appears to add support for
home/end/pgup/pgdn. While I'm not a huge fan of that (patching and
all), broken keys in shitty vi's is one of my biggest annoyances (at
work I regularly use 5-10 machines with varying vi versions and 90%
are just broken).
If we're already patching the navkeys in vi and are ok with that, why
not add arrow keys in there too?
03-12-2010, 09:19 PM
Allan McRae
vi-050325-3 (1 for each arch)
On 13/03/10 07:28, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 07.03.2010 20:41, schrieb Paul Mattal:
Please signoff 1 for each arch.
This is just packaging cleanup, and should have no subtantive impact on
the functioning of vi. Mostly just looking for an extra sanity check
here, nothing specific to test.
See FS#18215 for details. Highlights:
* removed obsolete gcc bug workaround portion of du.patch, renamed to
navkeys.patch
* used make options rather than manual means of configuration wherever
possible
- P
I used this, but when I use the arrow keys while in insert mode, it
prints "D" instead of moving around. Is that normal?
That is how it is... http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/17734
Signoff both.
Allan
03-12-2010, 09:21 PM
Aaron Griffin
vi-050325-3 (1 for each arch)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 13/03/10 07:28, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>>
>> Am 07.03.2010 20:41, schrieb Paul Mattal:
>>>
>>> Please signoff 1 for each arch.
>>>
>>> This is just packaging cleanup, and should have no subtantive impact on
>>> the functioning of vi. Mostly just looking for an extra sanity check
>>> here, nothing specific to test.
>>>
>>> See FS#18215 for details. Highlights:
>>>
>>> * removed obsolete gcc bug workaround portion of du.patch, renamed to
>>> navkeys.patch
>>> * used make options rather than manual means of configuration wherever
>>> possible
>>>
>>> - P
>>>
>>
>> I used this, but when I use the arrow keys while in insert mode, it
>> prints "D" instead of moving around. Is that normal?
>>
>
> That is how it is... *http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/17734
Honest question though: we already have a "navkeys" patch to support
Home/End/PgUp/PgDn. How is that any different?
We should pick one side of this: either fix all the keys, or none
03-13-2010, 02:53 AM
Paul Mattal
vi-050325-3 (1 for each arch)
On 03/12/2010 05:17 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Thomas Bächler<thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Am 07.03.2010 20:41, schrieb Paul Mattal:
Please signoff 1 for each arch.
This is just packaging cleanup, and should have no subtantive impact on
the functioning of vi. Mostly just looking for an extra sanity check
here, nothing specific to test.
See FS#18215 for details. Highlights:
* removed obsolete gcc bug workaround portion of du.patch, renamed to
navkeys.patch
* used make options rather than manual means of configuration wherever
possible
- P
I used this, but when I use the arrow keys while in insert mode, it
prints "D" instead of moving around. Is that normal?
That's the way crappy vi's behave on all flavor of unicies. It's
annoying as hell.
What is this "navkeys" patch? It appears to add support for
home/end/pgup/pgdn. While I'm not a huge fan of that (patching and
all), broken keys in shitty vi's is one of my biggest annoyances (at
work I regularly use 5-10 machines with varying vi versions and 90%
are just broken).
If we're already patching the navkeys in vi and are ok with that, why
not add arrow keys in there too?
Nothing has changed here in our patching of the navkeys, just in the
name of the patch.
We had a patch before named du.patch, which included the navkeys patch
and another patch for a bug in gcc (which has since become unnecessary).
This "new" patch is just the navkeys part of the du.patch (which was
named after the patch author's initials) renamed to navkeys.patch.
I'm not in favor of changing the navkeys behavior away from what it has
been without some input from Tobias, the maintainer, who may know the
history and reasoning here.
Unless there is some regression, can we get some signoffs for this
cleanup before moving on to changing other things in the package?
- P
03-13-2010, 04:11 PM
Dieter Plaetinck
vi-050325-3 (1 for each arch)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:21:19 -0600
Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
> wrote:
> > That is how it is... *http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/17734
>
> Honest question though: we already have a "navkeys" patch to support
> Home/End/PgUp/PgDn. How is that any different?
>
> We should pick one side of this: either fix all the keys, or none
"fix" ? like the ticket says, that's the way how vi (or whichever
upstream version we use) is _meant_ to behave.
I can understand one not liking the behavior, but it just seems to be
how it's intended.
vi-050325-3 (1 for each arch)
