Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:23:51 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: More robust color terminal Message-ID: <20050625082351.GA14612@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <42BAF439.6060403@cornell.edu> <1279.192.168.0.7.1119668992.squirrel@waveform.plus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i 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. > > 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. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- 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/