Re: SPECS: vim.spec - with python, ruby and tcl by default - rel 3 for...
On Sunday 17 June 2007, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 09:45:54PM +0200, Cezary Krzyzanowski wrote:
> > Dnia 17-06-2007, N o godzinie 17:55 +0100, wrobell napisał(a):
> > > imho it should be off by default. if one wants fat vim, then please
> > > create vim-enahnced/vim-fat/whatever packages.
> >
> > 1. What is fat? perl is fat for me, python not and it was on by default
> > 2. Vim static is the choice for slim solutions.
>
> Just for the record:
>
> $ rpm -q --qf '%-12{NAME}: %{SIZE}\n' perl-base python-libs ruby tcl vim-rt
> perl-base : 2936355
vim needs just perl-libs (at least on AC) --
$ rpm -q --qf '%-12{NAME}: %{SIZE}\n' perl-libs
perl-libs : 1146552
vim works with just perl-libs, but do the perl functions actually work -- no
idea never used language bindings.
> python-libs : 1828755
> ruby: 1094668
> tcl : 4306684
> vim-rt : 14952921
>
> (assuming that libs packages suffice to run vim without complaints)
>
> But the original question was: do particular language support overhead is
> worth its benefits?
i believe not.
> Are there already some packaged or custom vim addons which need all these
> languages?
afaik none.
the language bindings should be dynamic -- loaded at runtime if needed that
would be sane solution :)
seems currently impossible as the code is full of #ifdef FEAT_
--
glen
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: NEW poldek 0.20070617.23 - please test
On Monday 18 of June 2007, Bartosz Taudul wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 11:42:22PM +0200, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > > New poldek snap (0.20070617.23) was sent to Th builders. It has > > improvements in handling package colors and *tadam* multilib > > capabilities. > > > > Please test :) > > błąd: libxslt-1.1.21-1.athlon package color (0) is not equal to > libxslt-1.1.21-1.athlon.rpm's one (1) błąd: libxslt-progs-1.1.21-1.athlon > package color (0) is not equal to libxslt-progs-1.1.21-1.athlon.rpm's one > (1) There were package coloring mismatches. Proceed? [y/N] > > wolf Not sure what's the problem but there is one important thing with new poldek - fetch ALL indexes from scratch using that new poldek. There was bug in poldek that prevented colors from being properly propagated. -- Arkadiusz MiśkiewiczPLD/Linux Team arekm / maven.plhttp://ftp.pld-linux.org/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: NEW poldek 0.20070617.23 - please test
2007/6/18, Bartosz Taudul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 11:42:22PM +0200, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > > New poldek snap (0.20070617.23) was sent to Th builders. It has improvements > > in handling package colors and *tadam* multilib capabilities. > > > > Please test :) > błąd: libxslt-1.1.21-1.athlon package color (0) is not equal to > libxslt-1.1.21-1.athlon.rpm's one (1) > błąd: libxslt-progs-1.1.21-1.athlon package color (0) is not equal to > libxslt-progs-1.1.21-1.athlon.rpm's one (1) > There were package coloring mismatches. Proceed? [y/N] > touch /var/lib/rpm/Packages and re-run poldek. Regards -- Artur Frysiak ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: NEW poldek 0.20070617.23 - please test
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 11:42:22PM +0200, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > New poldek snap (0.20070617.23) was sent to Th builders. It has improvements > in handling package colors and *tadam* multilib capabilities. > > Please test :) błąd: libxslt-1.1.21-1.athlon package color (0) is not equal to libxslt-1.1.21-1.athlon.rpm's one (1) błąd: libxslt-progs-1.1.21-1.athlon package color (0) is not equal to libxslt-progs-1.1.21-1.athlon.rpm's one (1) There were package coloring mismatches. Proceed? [y/N] wolf -- Bartek . Taudul : .: w o l f @ p l d - l i n u x . o r g.:. http://wolf.valkyrie.one.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
NEW poldek 0.20070617.23 - please test
Hello, New poldek snap (0.20070617.23) was sent to Th builders. It has improvements in handling package colors and *tadam* multilib capabilities. Please test :) -- Arkadiusz MiśkiewiczPLD/Linux Team arekm / maven.plhttp://ftp.pld-linux.org/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: vim.spec - with python, ruby and tcl by default - rel 3 for...
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 09:45:54PM +0200, Cezary Krzyzanowski wrote:
> Dnia 17-06-2007, N o godzinie 17:55 +0100, wrobell napisał(a):
>
> > imho it should be off by default. if one wants fat vim, then please create
> > vim-enahnced/vim-fat/whatever packages.
>
> 1. What is fat? perl is fat for me, python not and it was on by default
> 2. Vim static is the choice for slim solutions.
Just for the record:
$ rpm -q --qf '%-12{NAME}: %{SIZE}\n' perl-base python-libs ruby tcl vim-rt
perl-base : 2936355
python-libs : 1828755
ruby: 1094668
tcl : 4306684
vim-rt : 14952921
(assuming that libs packages suffice to run vim without complaints)
But the original question was: do particular language support overhead is
worth its benefits?
Are there already some packaged or custom vim addons which need all these
languages?
--
Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: vim.spec - with python, ruby and tcl by default - rel 3 for...
Dnia 17-06-2007, N o godzinie 17:55 +0100, wrobell napisał(a): > imho it should be off by default. if one wants fat vim, then please create > vim-enahnced/vim-fat/whatever packages. 1. What is fat? perl is fat for me, python not and it was on by default 2. Vim static is the choice for slim solutions. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: vim.spec - with python, ruby and tcl by default - rel 3 for...
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 05:41:19PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:20:07PM +0200, czarny wrote: > > Author: czarny Date: Tue Jun 5 15:20:07 2007 GMT > > Module: SPECS Tag: HEAD > > Log message: > > - with python, ruby and tcl by default > > IIRC this makes vim binary depend on python, ruby and tcl libraries. > Is it worth its profits? imho it should be off by default. if one wants fat vim, then please create vim-enahnced/vim-fat/whatever packages. regards, wrobell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: vim.spec - with python, ruby and tcl by default - rel 3 for...
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:20:07PM +0200, czarny wrote: > Author: czarny Date: Tue Jun 5 15:20:07 2007 GMT > Module: SPECS Tag: HEAD > Log message: > - with python, ruby and tcl by default IIRC this makes vim binary depend on python, ruby and tcl libraries. Is it worth its profits? -- Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS (AC-branch): spamassassin.spec - more -compile deps
On Saturday 16 June 2007, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:43:17PM +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:40:53 glen wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > +Requires:glibc-headers
> > > Requires:make
> > > Requires:perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
> > > Requires:perl-Mail-SpamAssassin = %{version}-%{release}
> > > @@ -338,6 +339,9 @@
> >
> > maybe this dependency should be in perl-devel package instead?
>
> Well, in fact all *-devel packages with glibc-based C interfaces should
> require glibc-devel...
yes that was fixed later. but the actual question was, should the glibc-devel
dep be in sa-compile or perl-devel package?
i see two points:
- in perl-devel because the perl-devel headers use glibc-headers,
- in sa-devel because sa-devel actually invokdes gcc while perl-devel you
might need for some other reason.
> (OC it can be omitted for *-devel which require *-devel already requiring
> glibc-devel)
--
glen
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS (AC-branch): kernel-vanilla.spec - fix for PPC failing when ...
Dnia sobota, 16 czerwca 2007, Marcin Król napisał: > > "vanilla" means "unmodified". And you are changing that kernel. Doesn't > > matter if it's cosmetics or not. No matter if it's patch or sed. > > Yes. I know all that. By my previous mail I was trying to say: "then it > was never vanilla kernel" as sed was used to modify makefile since the > first revision. mv kernel-vanilla.spec kernel-millivanilli.spec on the CVS side? ;) -- Łukasz [DeeJay1] Jernaś ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
