Bill McCarthy wrote:
> >> You are correct that Mingw is not a complete package. One > >> needs to download the various unix utilities separately. > >> But one usually gets sh.exe also - I also got zsh.exe in one > >> of my downloads of unix utilities. [They don't all play well > >> with Windows, so one needs to test quite a bit.] > > > Isn't it possible to make the tests work without the extra downloads? > > Using a testdir/Make_ming.mak, which mostly uses the DOS way of doing > > things should work, right? Adding a dependency on installing various > > other tools is not nice. > > Yes, I've created Make_ming.mak which works whether running > from CMD, sh or zsh. I've borrowed from your Make_ming.mak > in src for compiling. See attached. > > Test has been tested under my environment and under CMD > after removing both sh.exe and zsh.exe from my path. Great. I'll include this. Please send a new version when you make improvements. > >>>> The GNU make command will use zsh (or sh if zsh is not > >>>> present). Only if neither of these are in your path is CMD > >>>> used - and you CAN use Make_dos.mak. > >>>> > >>>> I've created Make_dos_sh.mak which should work with either > >>>> sh.exe or zsh.exe - this is attached. When I ran it with > >>>> `make -f Make_dos_sh.mak', test54 failed with the following: > >>>> > >>>> cp test54.ok test.ok > >>>> ../vim -u dos.vim -U NONE --noplugin -s dotest.in test54.in > >>>> diff test.out test54.ok > >>>> diff: test.out: No such file or directory > >>>> make: *** [test54.out] Error 2 > >>>> > >>>> Am I the first one to ever run these tests in Windows? > > >>> This test uses Unix commands. They can probably be avoided, since the > >>> buffer-local autocommands don't require a shell command. > > >> Yes, the CMD command `rm -f' is a problem. I've removed > >> this bad test and added a comment to the top of the new file > >> (see attached). > > > I've put a remark on the todo list to change test54. However, the todo > > list is very, very long... > > I misspoke. The `rm -f' is NOT a problem - the user should > have that utility. There is another problem with test54. > > >>>> When I run `make Make_dos_sh.mak clean' it cleans things up. > >>>> Are there other targets I should use for a full test or is > >>>> that accomplished with the make file? > >>>> > >>>> One little problem. The unix utility command `rm -f X*' > >>>> produces an error message with there are no X* files. What > >>>> is the way around that? > > >>> I think that's normal. > > >> OK. With test54 removed, I've run several tests and they > >> each produced an `ALL DONE'. Apparently that means > >> everything worked? > > > Or that nothing was tested :-). > > >> Here are the tests I ran: > >> > >> make -f Make_dos_sh.mak nongui > >> make -f Make_dos_sh.mak small > >> make -f Make_dos_sh.mak gui > >> make -f Make_dos_sh.mak win32 > >> > >> The second test isn't much of a test :-) > > Why not have a test that tests all of them: > > vimall:<TAB>fixff $(SCRIPTS16) $(SCRIPTS) $(SCRIPTS_GUI) $(SCRIPTS32) > > Otherwise we appear to redundantly test. This should be the > first (default) test. I've added it to Make_ming.mak for > testdir. The idea is that "make gui" runs all the tests that are possible for a Vim compiled with GUI, "nongui" for console Vim, etc. If you add them all together there won't be a Vim that manages to pass all the tests. -- "I simultaneously try to keep my head in the clouds and my feet on the ground. Sometimes it's a stretch, though." -- Larry Wall /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org /// \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org /// --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
