This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

gvim packaging (Was Re: More robust color terminal)


On Sat, 25 Jun 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Jun 25 00:40, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005, Dave Hughes wrote:
> > > I can understand the rationale behind wanting to package gvim separately
> > > to vim (allows for people who want vim, but don't want X).
> >
> > Well, gvim is kinda special.  You might want to compile it with both the
> > X11 libraries and W11 libraries from rxvt, to allow people to run windowed
> > gvim without X.  I don't know how easy or hard it is, just a thought.
>
> YMMV, but I think it's ok if gvim is a pure X application, residing in
> /usr/X11R6/bin.  If you don't have X, just start vim in another local
> rxvt window and you're all set.

By the same token, if you *do* have X, just start vim in a local xterm
window, and you're all set.  I personally don't use gvim, but, as I
understand, it has more features than a console-mode vim (e.g., menus,
fonts, etc, etc).  So far, the only Cygwin-aware editor with a native
windowed mode is xemacs -- IMO, it's high time for vim to get there.

> > > However, they're basically the same app. Would it make sense for a
> > > gvim package to include just the gvim binary, and have a dependency
> > > on the main vim package to provide the runtime files (syntax
> > > highlighting configs and such like)?
> >
> > Definitely yes.  It would make even more sense to split the vim
> > package into the base editor and the runtime support files.  Corinna
> > Vinschen, who, in addition to being the Cygwin project co-leader, also
> > maintains quite a few packages (including vim), has repeatedly
> > expressed desire to hand off some of her packages.  Don't know if vim
> > is one of them, but it doesn't hurt to ask.  If you take over vim
> > (provided Corinna agrees), you can handle the proper repackaging
> > easily enough.
>
> I have no ambition to split the vim package.  As long as I'm vim
> maintainer, I'd rather have gvim just being a binary package using the
> vim source package and having a dependency to the vim package as a
> whole.  Talking about maintainership, vim isn't exactly tricky to
> maintain, so I never thought about passing it on.  But if you really
> want to take over, feel free.

One (not very compelling) reason for such a split is that the runtime
files could then be updated on a different schedule.  Another is that if
gvim is compiled with native windowed mode, it'll need a different build
script, and (partly) a different source (though, of course, these
modifications could be made on the common source as well).

If we get a gvim maintainer, it might be easier to have him also maintain
vim, rather than coordinate.  But all of the above are just suggestions,
however -- it's really up to you as the vim maintainer to decide what to
do.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]