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

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux User Repository

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-19-2009, 01:54 PM
Andrei Thorp
 
Default Arch's Vim Failings & Solution Suggestions

Hello, fellow Archers.

Recently, I had a question about Vim, so I went to the #vim channel in
IRC. I was doing something
that should be working, but it wasn't. Surprisingly, the question came
up, "Are you on Arch?"

Turns out that several of the peolpe I most respect in the #vim IRC
channel are very unhappy with the quality of Arch's Vim package. One
even (jokingly?) asked if they could officially not support Arch in
the channel, which I found somewhat alarming. I suggested that we
should instead help improve the Arch package.

I hate to pick on people, but according to the generally kind folks on
IRC, the Vim package for Arch has quite a few issues, and the
maintainer hasn't addressed some outstanding bugs in quite a long
while.

As some of you may know, James Vega (jamessan) is an outstanding Vim
user and the Debian package maintainer for Vim. I asked him to send me
what he saw as the problems with the Arch package, and he was kind
enough to send along some suggestions. They are attached in this
forward.

Thank you,

-Andrei Thorp

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>
Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:29 AM
Subject: Arch's Vim failings
To: garoth@gmail.com


Andrei,

Thanks for being receptive to trying to address the issues in Arch's Vim
packaging. *Below are the major points that stand out.

1) gvim package: Shipping an /etc/gvimrc which, due to the order that
* Vim loads rc files, overrides any settings in the user's ~/.vimrc.
* Considering that some users make the conscious decision to keep all
* their settings in their ~/.vimrc instead of using both ~/.vimrc and
* ~/.gvimrc, this is at the very least annoying. *More in depth
* discussion is contained in the nearly year old, unfixed bug[0] about
* this issue.

2) vi package: The package is built such that the resulting vi binary
* reads its config from the completely non-standard ~/.virc.
* Presumably this is to allow different configurations for the
* different feature-sets avaiable in vi vs. vim packages. *Fortunately,
* Vim has methods to deal with this already such as being able to check
* what name was used to invoke Vim[1] and explicitly checking for
* feature support[2].

3) vi, vim, and gvim packages: Explicitly building Vim with $VIMRUNTIME
* == $VIM by specifying "--with-global-runtime=/usr/share/vim" to
* configure. *This doesn't need to be specified to configure as it will
* be set to the correct directory on its own. *If they insist on
* specifying it, the directory should be /usr/share/vim/vimXY (where XY
* is Vim's version number -- 72 for current Vim).

* This manifests various problems, the most noticeable being that the
* 'runtimepath' option in Vim has /usr/share/vim listed twice, thus
* causing runtime files to be sourced twice and causing duplicate
* information when using common scripting methods for discovering files
* in the runtimepath[3].

--
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

[0] - http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10303
[1] - if vrogname == 'vi'
[2] - if has('cscope')
[3] - globpath(&rtp, 'colors/*')

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknB5lcACgkQDb3UpmEybUCg6ACgjRFE4YnrbE GMq8uY51CZqRis
xZsAnjbOC4BsAv/hYG9hcfmbogJLdLtX
=HJf3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknB5lcACgkQDb3UpmEybUCg6ACgjRFE4YnrbE GMq8uY51CZqRis
xZsAnjbOC4BsAv/hYG9hcfmbogJLdLtX
=HJf3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 03-19-2009, 02:01 PM
Daenyth Blank
 
Default Arch's Vim Failings & Solution Suggestions

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:54, Andrei Thorp <garoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, fellow Archers.
>
> Recently, I had a question about Vim, so I went to the #vim channel in
> IRC. I was doing something
> that should be working, but it wasn't. Surprisingly, the question came
> up, "Are you on Arch?"
>
> Turns out that several of the peolpe I most respect in the #vim IRC
> channel are very unhappy with the quality of Arch's Vim package. One
> even (jokingly?) asked if they could officially not support Arch in
> the channel, which I found somewhat alarming. I suggested that we
> should instead help improve the Arch package.
>
> I hate to pick on people, but according to the generally kind folks on
> IRC, the Vim package for Arch has quite a few issues, and the
> maintainer hasn't addressed some outstanding bugs in quite a long
> while.
>
> As some of you may know, James Vega (jamessan) is an outstanding Vim
> user and the Debian package maintainer for Vim. I asked him to send me
> what he saw as the problems with the Arch package, and he was kind
> enough to send along some suggestions. They are attached in this
> forward.
>
> Thank you,
>
> -Andrei Thorp
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>
> Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:29 AM
> Subject: Arch's Vim failings
> To: garoth@gmail.com
>
>
> Andrei,
>
> Thanks for being receptive to trying to address the issues in Arch's Vim
> packaging. *Below are the major points that stand out.
>
> 1) gvim package: Shipping an /etc/gvimrc which, due to the order that
> * Vim loads rc files, overrides any settings in the user's ~/.vimrc.
> * Considering that some users make the conscious decision to keep all
> * their settings in their ~/.vimrc instead of using both ~/.vimrc and
> * ~/.gvimrc, this is at the very least annoying. *More in depth
> * discussion is contained in the nearly year old, unfixed bug[0] about
> * this issue.
>
> 2) vi package: The package is built such that the resulting vi binary
> * reads its config from the completely non-standard ~/.virc.
> * Presumably this is to allow different configurations for the
> * different feature-sets avaiable in vi vs. vim packages. *Fortunately,
> * Vim has methods to deal with this already such as being able to check
> * what name was used to invoke Vim[1] and explicitly checking for
> * feature support[2].
>
> 3) vi, vim, and gvim packages: Explicitly building Vim with $VIMRUNTIME
> * == $VIM by specifying "--with-global-runtime=/usr/share/vim" to
> * configure. *This doesn't need to be specified to configure as it will
> * be set to the correct directory on its own. *If they insist on
> * specifying it, the directory should be /usr/share/vim/vimXY (where XY
> * is Vim's version number -- 72 for current Vim).
>
> * This manifests various problems, the most noticeable being that the
> * 'runtimepath' option in Vim has /usr/share/vim listed twice, thus
> * causing runtime files to be sourced twice and causing duplicate
> * information when using common scripting methods for discovering files
> * in the runtimepath[3].
>
> --
> James
> GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>
>
> [0] - http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10303
> [1] - if vrogname == 'vi'
> [2] - if has('cscope')
> [3] - globpath(&rtp, 'colors/*')
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAknB5lcACgkQDb3UpmEybUCg6ACgjRFE4YnrbE GMq8uY51CZqRis
> xZsAnjbOC4BsAv/hYG9hcfmbogJLdLtX
> =HJf3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

I don't have a whole lot to add to this, except that it seems like a
good idea to confer with the vim developers to raise the quality of
the package. I would file a bug report on the Arch tracker.

(Also sending to arch-general, so this gets more exposure)
 
Old 03-19-2009, 02:01 PM
"Kessia 'even' Pinheiro"
 
Default Arch's Vim Failings & Solution Suggestions

Hi,

I had that problem too, i asked for something in #vim channel and they
only ridicularize vim package from Arch. I tried talk with Tobias
about the vim upgrade for support ruby1.9, but he are so far from fix
it, looking for problems which isnt important, in my vision. VI
package are with 65 patch, unless the oficial project are with more
than 100! I think it's a problem from arch package, but we need know
why it's so problematic for vim users dont like the package layout.

thanks

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Andrei Thorp <garoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, fellow Archers.
>
> Recently, I had a question about Vim, so I went to the #vim channel in
> IRC. I was doing something
> that should be working, but it wasn't. Surprisingly, the question came
> up, "Are you on Arch?"
>
> Turns out that several of the peolpe I most respect in the #vim IRC
> channel are very unhappy with the quality of Arch's Vim package. One
> even (jokingly?) asked if they could officially not support Arch in
> the channel, which I found somewhat alarming. I suggested that we
> should instead help improve the Arch package.
>
> I hate to pick on people, but according to the generally kind folks on
> IRC, the Vim package for Arch has quite a few issues, and the
> maintainer hasn't addressed some outstanding bugs in quite a long
> while.
>
> As some of you may know, James Vega (jamessan) is an outstanding Vim
> user and the Debian package maintainer for Vim. I asked him to send me
> what he saw as the problems with the Arch package, and he was kind
> enough to send along some suggestions. They are attached in this
> forward.
>
> Thank you,
>
> -Andrei Thorp
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>
> Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:29 AM
> Subject: Arch's Vim failings
> To: garoth@gmail.com
>
>
> Andrei,
>
> Thanks for being receptive to trying to address the issues in Arch's Vim
> packaging. *Below are the major points that stand out.
>
> 1) gvim package: Shipping an /etc/gvimrc which, due to the order that
> * Vim loads rc files, overrides any settings in the user's ~/.vimrc.
> * Considering that some users make the conscious decision to keep all
> * their settings in their ~/.vimrc instead of using both ~/.vimrc and
> * ~/.gvimrc, this is at the very least annoying. *More in depth
> * discussion is contained in the nearly year old, unfixed bug[0] about
> * this issue.
>
> 2) vi package: The package is built such that the resulting vi binary
> * reads its config from the completely non-standard ~/.virc.
> * Presumably this is to allow different configurations for the
> * different feature-sets avaiable in vi vs. vim packages. *Fortunately,
> * Vim has methods to deal with this already such as being able to check
> * what name was used to invoke Vim[1] and explicitly checking for
> * feature support[2].
>
> 3) vi, vim, and gvim packages: Explicitly building Vim with $VIMRUNTIME
> * == $VIM by specifying "--with-global-runtime=/usr/share/vim" to
> * configure. *This doesn't need to be specified to configure as it will
> * be set to the correct directory on its own. *If they insist on
> * specifying it, the directory should be /usr/share/vim/vimXY (where XY
> * is Vim's version number -- 72 for current Vim).
>
> * This manifests various problems, the most noticeable being that the
> * 'runtimepath' option in Vim has /usr/share/vim listed twice, thus
> * causing runtime files to be sourced twice and causing duplicate
> * information when using common scripting methods for discovering files
> * in the runtimepath[3].
>
> --
> James
> GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>
>
> [0] - http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10303
> [1] - if vrogname == 'vi'
> [2] - if has('cscope')
> [3] - globpath(&rtp, 'colors/*')
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAknB5lcACgkQDb3UpmEybUCg6ACgjRFE4YnrbE GMq8uY51CZqRis
> xZsAnjbOC4BsAv/hYG9hcfmbogJLdLtX
> =HJf3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>



--
Kessia Pinheiro
Computer Science Student - Brazil, UFBa
Linux System Administrator
Arch Linux Trusted User
Linux User #389695
http://even.archlinux-br.org
---
X Fórum Internacional Software Livre - fisl10
24 a 27 de junho de 2009
PUCRS - Porto Alegre - Brasil
 
Old 03-19-2009, 02:05 PM
Andrei Thorp
 
Default Arch's Vim Failings & Solution Suggestions

Thanks for sending it along, Dae.

-AT

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Kessia 'even' Pinheiro
<kessiapinheiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had that problem too, i asked for something in #vim channel and they
> only ridicularize vim package from Arch. I tried talk with Tobias
> about the vim upgrade for support ruby1.9, but he are so far from fix
> it, looking for problems which isnt important, in my vision. VI
> package are with 65 patch, unless the oficial project are with more
> than 100! I think it's a problem from arch package, but we need know
> why it's so problematic for vim users dont like the package layout.
>
> thanks
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Andrei Thorp <garoth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello, fellow Archers.
>>
>> Recently, I had a question about Vim, so I went to the #vim channel in
>> IRC. I was doing something
>> that should be working, but it wasn't. Surprisingly, the question came
>> up, "Are you on Arch?"
>>
>> Turns out that several of the peolpe I most respect in the #vim IRC
>> channel are very unhappy with the quality of Arch's Vim package. One
>> even (jokingly?) asked if they could officially not support Arch in
>> the channel, which I found somewhat alarming. I suggested that we
>> should instead help improve the Arch package.
>>
>> I hate to pick on people, but according to the generally kind folks on
>> IRC, the Vim package for Arch has quite a few issues, and the
>> maintainer hasn't addressed some outstanding bugs in quite a long
>> while.
>>
>> As some of you may know, James Vega (jamessan) is an outstanding Vim
>> user and the Debian package maintainer for Vim. I asked him to send me
>> what he saw as the problems with the Arch package, and he was kind
>> enough to send along some suggestions. They are attached in this
>> forward.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> -Andrei Thorp
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>
>> Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:29 AM
>> Subject: Arch's Vim failings
>> To: garoth@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> Andrei,
>>
>> Thanks for being receptive to trying to address the issues in Arch's Vim
>> packaging. *Below are the major points that stand out.
>>
>> 1) gvim package: Shipping an /etc/gvimrc which, due to the order that
>> * Vim loads rc files, overrides any settings in the user's ~/.vimrc.
>> * Considering that some users make the conscious decision to keep all
>> * their settings in their ~/.vimrc instead of using both ~/.vimrc and
>> * ~/.gvimrc, this is at the very least annoying. *More in depth
>> * discussion is contained in the nearly year old, unfixed bug[0] about
>> * this issue.
>>
>> 2) vi package: The package is built such that the resulting vi binary
>> * reads its config from the completely non-standard ~/.virc.
>> * Presumably this is to allow different configurations for the
>> * different feature-sets avaiable in vi vs. vim packages. *Fortunately,
>> * Vim has methods to deal with this already such as being able to check
>> * what name was used to invoke Vim[1] and explicitly checking for
>> * feature support[2].
>>
>> 3) vi, vim, and gvim packages: Explicitly building Vim with $VIMRUNTIME
>> * == $VIM by specifying "--with-global-runtime=/usr/share/vim" to
>> * configure. *This doesn't need to be specified to configure as it will
>> * be set to the correct directory on its own. *If they insist on
>> * specifying it, the directory should be /usr/share/vim/vimXY (where XY
>> * is Vim's version number -- 72 for current Vim).
>>
>> * This manifests various problems, the most noticeable being that the
>> * 'runtimepath' option in Vim has /usr/share/vim listed twice, thus
>> * causing runtime files to be sourced twice and causing duplicate
>> * information when using common scripting methods for discovering files
>> * in the runtimepath[3].
>>
>> --
>> James
>> GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>
>>
>> [0] - http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10303
>> [1] - if vrogname == 'vi'
>> [2] - if has('cscope')
>> [3] - globpath(&rtp, 'colors/*')
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAknB5lcACgkQDb3UpmEybUCg6ACgjRFE4YnrbE GMq8uY51CZqRis
>> xZsAnjbOC4BsAv/hYG9hcfmbogJLdLtX
>> =HJf3
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kessia Pinheiro
> Computer Science Student - Brazil, UFBa
> Linux System Administrator
> Arch Linux Trusted User
> Linux User #389695
> http://even.archlinux-br.org
> ---
> X Fórum Internacional Software Livre - fisl10
> 24 a 27 de junho de 2009
> PUCRS - Porto Alegre - Brasil
>
 
Old 03-19-2009, 02:12 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default Arch's Vim Failings & Solution Suggestions

Andrei Thorp wrote:

<snip>



There is a new vim setup on its way which should address some of these
issues. Not sure what the status of it is though...


Allan
 
Old 03-19-2009, 02:35 PM
Aaron Griffin
 
Default Arch's Vim Failings & Solution Suggestions

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Andrei Thorp <garoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, fellow Archers.
>
> Recently, I had a question about Vim, so I went to the #vim channel in
> IRC. I was doing something
> that should be working, but it wasn't. Surprisingly, the question came
> up, "Are you on Arch?"
>
> Turns out that several of the peolpe I most respect in the #vim IRC
> channel are very unhappy with the quality of Arch's Vim package. One
> even (jokingly?) asked if they could officially not support Arch in
> the channel, which I found somewhat alarming. I suggested that we
> should instead help improve the Arch package.
>
> I hate to pick on people, but according to the generally kind folks on
> IRC, the Vim package for Arch has quite a few issues, and the
> maintainer hasn't addressed some outstanding bugs in quite a long
> while.
>
> As some of you may know, James Vega (jamessan) is an outstanding Vim
> user and the Debian package maintainer for Vim. I asked him to send me
> what he saw as the problems with the Arch package, and he was kind
> enough to send along some suggestions. They are attached in this
> forward.
>
> Thank you,
>
> -Andrei Thorp
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>
> Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:29 AM
> Subject: Arch's Vim failings
> To: garoth@gmail.com
>
>
> Andrei,
>
> Thanks for being receptive to trying to address the issues in Arch's Vim
> packaging. *Below are the major points that stand out.
>
> 1) gvim package: Shipping an /etc/gvimrc which, due to the order that
> * Vim loads rc files, overrides any settings in the user's ~/.vimrc.
> * Considering that some users make the conscious decision to keep all
> * their settings in their ~/.vimrc instead of using both ~/.vimrc and
> * ~/.gvimrc, this is at the very least annoying. *More in depth
> * discussion is contained in the nearly year old, unfixed bug[0] about
> * this issue.
>
> 2) vi package: The package is built such that the resulting vi binary
> * reads its config from the completely non-standard ~/.virc.
> * Presumably this is to allow different configurations for the
> * different feature-sets avaiable in vi vs. vim packages. *Fortunately,
> * Vim has methods to deal with this already such as being able to check
> * what name was used to invoke Vim[1] and explicitly checking for
> * feature support[2].
>
> 3) vi, vim, and gvim packages: Explicitly building Vim with $VIMRUNTIME
> * == $VIM by specifying "--with-global-runtime=/usr/share/vim" to
> * configure. *This doesn't need to be specified to configure as it will
> * be set to the correct directory on its own. *If they insist on
> * specifying it, the directory should be /usr/share/vim/vimXY (where XY
> * is Vim's version number -- 72 for current Vim).
>
> * This manifests various problems, the most noticeable being that the
> * 'runtimepath' option in Vim has /usr/share/vim listed twice, thus
> * causing runtime files to be sourced twice and causing duplicate
> * information when using common scripting methods for discovering files
> * in the runtimepath[3].
>
> [0] - http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10303
> [1] - if vrogname == 'vi'
> [2] - if has('cscope')
> [3] - globpath(&rtp, 'colors/*')

Thanks for sending this along. We're more than willing to fix and work
through problems that upstream has with the way we package software -
as we always say, we try to stay as close to upstream as possible.

So, couple of solutions I'd like to suggest:

The reason the vi package is... well, "jacked up", is because we
needed a small version to stick in our base package set, without a lot
of features. I guess this would be like vim-tiny on Debian.

What we could do is simply ship nvi instead, for that purpose, and
stick with only two packages, vim and gvim. That would help things
greatly.

Is not shipping a global /etc/gvimrc the norm? If so, we could do
that, and it would solve some annoyances I myself experienced (though
I rarely use gvim).

Regarding the runtimepath, that is a good point that scripts are
sourced twice. Definitely a bug and we should fix this.
 
Old 03-19-2009, 02:49 PM
Daenyth Blank
 
Default Arch's Vim Failings & Solution Suggestions

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:35, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> What we could do is simply ship nvi instead, for that purpose, and
> stick with only two packages, vim and gvim. That would help things
> greatly.
> <snip>

+1
 
Old 03-19-2009, 07:07 PM
Aaron Griffin
 
Default Arch's Vim Failings & Solution Suggestions

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:35, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> What we could do is simply ship nvi instead, for that purpose, and
>> stick with only two packages, vim and gvim. That would help things
>> greatly.
>> <snip>
>
> +1

I just realized this was on the aur-general list. Silly place for this
discussion.

Can we move this to the bug tracker?
 
Old 03-19-2009, 11:44 PM
Andrei Thorp
 
Default Arch's Vim Failings & Solution Suggestions

It's been mentioned to me that several bugs are open around these
issues, and if this indeed the case, I believe it valuable to bring
attention to them -- a mailing list cannot hurt.

-AT

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:35, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> What we could do is simply ship nvi instead, for that purpose, and
>>> stick with only two packages, vim and gvim. That would help things
>>> greatly.
>>> <snip>
>>
>> +1
>
> I just realized this was on the aur-general list. Silly place for this
> discussion.
>
> Can we move this to the bug tracker?
>
 
Old 03-19-2009, 11:54 PM
Aaron Griffin
 
Default Arch's Vim Failings & Solution Suggestions

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Andrei Thorp <garoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's been mentioned to me that several bugs are open around these
> issues, and if this indeed the case, I believe it valuable to bring
> attention to them -- a mailing list cannot hurt.

Well, at the very least, I'm sure the AUR mailing list is the wrong
place for this.

But discussion on the bug tracker centralizes the facts, so I don't
have to go hunting around 4 different mailing lists, forum posts, and
things like that.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:54 AM.

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