Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/06/25/14:22:41
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 AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT 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/
- Raw text -