Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:23:51 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: More robust color terminal
Message-ID: <20050625082351.GA14612@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <42BAF439 DOT 6060403 AT cornell DOT edu> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 61 DOT 0506241030050 DOT 18240 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <1279 DOT 192 DOT 168 DOT 0 DOT 7 DOT 1119668992 DOT squirrel AT waveform DOT plus DOT com> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 61 DOT 0506250027040 DOT 18734 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.61.0506250027040.18734@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
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 AT cygwin DOT 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/