This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: vim-7.3.1152-1
- From: Björn Kautler <Bjoern at Kautler dot net>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 00:56:55 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: vim-7.3.1152-1
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <announce dot 51B65778 dot 8020200 at users dot sourceforge dot net> <52096B42 dot 8010702 at Kautler dot net> <CAKChYSpP=AKMOc7yHL9NMJyQeKEvsswgKFTyJVKZZrg5vqbPsQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKChYSpBEmXquHxkC2LZSmgH60kXfTxriDVX_Ap6HC4GNMRWMg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131206171721 dot GA7240 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <CAKChYSqyXHXUh1GVNsOEZWPbS=RsObb_gOCLX5kycMFWej-mwQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131206234833 dot GC3154 at phoenix>
And it is ok and accepted that such a patch breaks the functionality?
Before the patch it was /etc/vim/vimrc and after the patch it was
/etc/vimrc which is not found and thus causes unexpected behaviour.
Shouldn't then at least a symlink be added at /etc/vimrc that points
to the old /etc/vim/vimrc to not break things?
Regards
Björn
2013/12/7 Gary Johnson:
> On 2013-12-06, Björn Kautler wrote:
>
>> 2013/12/6 Christopher Faylor:
>> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 06:07:17PM +0100, Bj?rn Kautler wrote:
>> >>Do my messages come through at all?
>> >>No-one answers or cares about this one. :-(
>> >
>> > Either it is this:
>> > 1) http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#WJM
>> >
>> > Or maybe this:
>> > 2) http://cygwin.com/problems.html
>> >
>> > Or maybe it is that this is a question has been asked and answered
>> > repeatedly.
>> >
>> > Install the 'vim' package. You likely only have vim-minimal installed. We
>> > don't know for sure because you didn't provide the details from 2).
>
>> Hi Christopher,
>>
>> thanks for your reply.
>> Do you really think it could be 2)?
>> I didn't ask a question like "hey somehting is not working".
>> But rather I found out where the problem is in the code and provided
>> two proposed fixes, not knowing which one is appropriate.
>> It is totally not depending on my installation, but on the sourcecode
>> of the package.
>> I could provide the information requested in 2), but I don't think it
>> would help in this case.
>> And yes, I have the "vim" package installed, not only the "vim-minimal" package.
>
> This is apparently not a bug but a deliberate decision by the Red
> Hat package maintainers. I base that on the observation that
> /usr/bin/vi and /usr/bin/vim on my Fedora 17 installation are
> configured with those same system vimrc files:
>
> $ /usr/bin/vi --version
> ...
> system vimrc file: "/etc/virc"
> ...
>
> $ /usr/bin/vim --version
> ...
> system vimrc file: "/etc/vimrc"
> ...
>
> It makes sense that Cygwin, belonging to Red Hat, would use the same
> configuration as other Red Hat distributions.
>
> (Please correct me if I've misstated the relationships between Red
> Hat, Fedora and Cygwin.)
>
> Regards,
> Gary
>
>
> --
> Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple