On 28/08/12 13:54, Lex Trotman wrote:
[...]
3. 'Vim files installed into /etc regardless of --prefix', this issue
was reported on the issue tracker over a year ago:
https://code.google.com/p/asciidoc/issues/detail?id=4
The Debian packagers at least fix this since their package puts it in
/usr/share/vim. I guess that indicates their approach to the previous
issue of installing to other apps is that it is ok to do it.
But I still don't want vim stuff by default ;)
Does this mean packagers will be impacted the Vim stuff is moved?
If yes then we'll leave it as it is, if no and someone cares enough to
submit a patch then I'll look at changing it.
Hi Stuart,
I guess it means that packagers would be affected if it needed an
option to include the vim stuff, but another way of looking at it is,
who is more capable of looking after themselves, experienced packagers
or users who can't install to system directories (which is the
original problem IIRC).
Perhaps a (well documented) option to skip the vim stuff would mean
the packagers wouldn't need to change the default but unprivileged
users could tell it to not install the vim stuff but it would be more
user friendly if the default was the other way around.
In any case the vim stuff should be installed in the right place (as I
said /usr/share/vim on my Debian based system) not in a fixed place
like /etc/vim. But I don't know how to find that, maybe a vimspurt
could say how to find out the right place (vim -vvv or something might
tell you where it is looking, I don't know).
Cheers
Lex
Hi Lex
Thinking about it and rereading Brian Gernhardt's original post
(https://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc/browse_thread/thread/753a52b2af85fcfc/04c9091b0856fc13)
I agree with you that the best solution is to drop the Vim stuff from the
installer makefile, but still distribute it and maybe give it a home on github.
BTW, have dropped install-sh:
https://code.google.com/p/asciidoc/source/detail?r=71c833093065641fc9e4af2d7d760a69487ffd97
Cheers, Stuart
4. 'Makefile.in does not follow the autoconf standard', another
long-standing issue:
https://code.google.com/p/asciidoc/issues/detail?id=2
I'm happy to leave things as they stand (they've been around for a
while and the sky hasn't fallen in) or apply documented tested patches
if there is consensus and/or persuasive arguments from affected
users and packagers (keep in mind that this area potentially
affects downstream packaging and is particularly sensitive
to regressions).
Yeah, packagers usually have a set of patches they apply to adapt to
their rules so it makes more work each time something changes, even if
it is correcting the problems they are correcting with their patches
since the patches have to be changed to not apply.
Thanks for your input Lex.
Cheers, Stuart
Cheers
Lex
Cheers, Stuart
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"asciidoc" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"asciidoc" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"asciidoc" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
