The vim runtime that can be retrieved via rsync is outdated.

Some of the patches modify the runtime, and some of these changes
(e.g. 394) are lost when the runtime is overwritten with the runtime
from rsync.

Not using the runtime from rsync at all also misses some updates.

Any thoughts on how to solve this? One option would be to build vim
from Mercurial (http://vim.googlecode.com).

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Jan Steffens <jan.steffens@gmail.com> wrote:
> The vim runtime that can be retrieved via rsync is outdated.
>
> Some of the patches modify the runtime, and some of these changes
> (e.g. 394) are lost when the runtime is overwritten with the runtime
> from rsync.
>
> Not using the runtime from rsync at all also misses some updates.
>
> Any thoughts on how to solve this? One option would be to build vim
> from Mercurial (http://vim.googlecode.com).
>

Just in case people think this is a theoretical problem no one cares about ...
solving this would give us tar.xz support that comes with latest
version of gzip plugin :
http://code.google.com/p/vim/source/browse/runtime/plugin/gzip.vim
Never opened a package in vim ? it's awesome

Anyway, this is just an example, we are also missing the latest &
greatest changes in many runtime files.
Well not me, as I use vim-hg, and I would recommend other vim users to
do the same.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33422

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Jan Steffens <jan.steffens@gmail.com> wrote:
> The vim runtime that can be retrieved via rsync is outdated.
>
> Some of the patches modify the runtime, and some of these changes
> (e.g. 394) are lost when the runtime is overwritten with the runtime
> from rsync.
>
> Not using the runtime from rsync at all also misses some updates.
>
> Any thoughts on how to solve this? One option would be to build vim
> from Mercurial (http://vim.googlecode.com).

I also agree that building from Mercurial might be our best bet here.
The vim PKGBUILD is crazy complex as it is, and switching to Mercurial
snapshots is probably a cleaner idea.

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Jan Steffens <jan.steffens@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The vim runtime that can be retrieved via rsync is outdated.
>>
>> Some of the patches modify the runtime, and some of these changes
>> (e.g. 394) are lost when the runtime is overwritten with the runtime
>> from rsync.
>>
>> Not using the runtime from rsync at all also misses some updates.
>>
>> Any thoughts on how to solve this? One option would be to build vim
>> from Mercurial (http://vim.googlecode.com).
>
> I also agree that building from Mercurial might be our best bet here.
> The vim PKGBUILD is crazy complex as it is, and switching to Mercurial
> snapshots is probably a cleaner idea.

And it looks like it DOES have tags, so "v7-2-325" would give us vim
7.2 including up to patch 325.

Simpler PKGBUILD? Check. More up to date runtime? Check. Less headache
to maintain? Check

On 14/05/2010 21:09, Xavier Chantry wrote:

Just in case people think this is a theoretical problem no one cares about ...
solving this would give us tar.xz support that comes with latest
version of gzip plugin :
http://code.google.com/p/vim/source/browse/runtime/plugin/gzip.vim
Never opened a package in vim ? it's awesome


Long ago I've added these lines to gzip.vim (copied to ~/.vim/plugin/):
...
autocmd BufReadPost,FileReadPost *.lzma call gzip#read("lzma -d")
autocmd BufReadPost,FileReadPost *.xz call gzip#read("xz -d")
...
autocmd BufWritePost,FileWritePost *.lzma call gzip#write("lzma")
autocmd BufWritePost,FileWritePost *.xz call gzip#write("xz")
...
autocmd FileAppendPre *.lzma call gzip#appre("lzma -d")
autocmd FileAppendPre *.xz call gzip#appre("xz -d")
...
autocmd FileAppendPost *.lzma call gzip#write("lzma")
autocmd FileAppendPost *.xz call gzip#write("xz")

I'll edit the PKGBUILD, then. Should I submit it as a bug again?

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Jan Steffens <jan.steffens@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The vim runtime that can be retrieved via rsync is outdated.
>>>
>>> Some of the patches modify the runtime, and some of these changes
>>> (e.g. 394) are lost when the runtime is overwritten with the runtime
>>> from rsync.
>>>
>>> Not using the runtime from rsync at all also misses some updates.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on how to solve this? One option would be to build vim
>>> from Mercurial (http://vim.googlecode.com).
>>
>> I also agree that building from Mercurial might be our best bet here.
>> The vim PKGBUILD is crazy complex as it is, and switching to Mercurial
>> snapshots is probably a cleaner idea.
>
> And it looks like it DOES have tags, so "v7-2-325" would give us vim
> 7.2 including up to patch 325.
>
> Simpler PKGBUILD? Check. More up to date runtime? Check. Less headache
> to maintain? Check
>

On 05/14/10 at 09:34pm, Jan Steffens wrote:
> I'll edit the PKGBUILD, then. Should I submit it as a bug again?
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Jan Steffens <jan.steffens@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The vim runtime that can be retrieved via rsync is outdated.
> >>>
> >>> Some of the patches modify the runtime, and some of these changes
> >>> (e.g. 394) are lost when the runtime is overwritten with the runtime
> >>> from rsync.
> >>>
> >>> Not using the runtime from rsync at all also misses some updates.
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts on how to solve this? One option would be to build vim
> >>> from Mercurial (http://vim.googlecode.com).
> >>
> >> I also agree that building from Mercurial might be our best bet here.
> >> The vim PKGBUILD is crazy complex as it is, and switching to Mercurial
> >> snapshots is probably a cleaner idea.
> >
> > And it looks like it DOES have tags, so "v7-2-325" would give us vim
> > 7.2 including up to patch 325.
> >
> > Simpler PKGBUILD? Check. More up to date runtime? Check. Less headache
> > to maintain? Check
> >
You can just send me the updated PKGBUILD. Been meaning to start working on
a transitional package anyway, but been crazy busy with work the last two
weeks.
--

The tags only go up to v7-2-325. Newer versions are untagged.

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Jan Steffens <jan.steffens@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The vim runtime that can be retrieved via rsync is outdated.
>>>
>>> Some of the patches modify the runtime, and some of these changes
>>> (e.g. 394) are lost when the runtime is overwritten with the runtime
>>> from rsync.
>>>
>>> Not using the runtime from rsync at all also misses some updates.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on how to solve this? One option would be to build vim
>>> from Mercurial (http://vim.googlecode.com).
>>
>> I also agree that building from Mercurial might be our best bet here.
>> The vim PKGBUILD is crazy complex as it is, and switching to Mercurial
>> snapshots is probably a cleaner idea.
>
> And it looks like it DOES have tags, so "v7-2-325" would give us vim
> 7.2 including up to patch 325.
>
> Simpler PKGBUILD? Check. More up to date runtime? Check. Less headache
> to maintain? Check
>