> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:11:52 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: [lfs-dev] vim location
>
> I was reviewing /bin today and noticed that we do not have an editor
> there. vim is in /usr/bin. My /bin right now if 5.6M and vim is 1.
I was reviewing /bin today and noticed that we do not have an editor
there. vim is in /usr/bin. My /bin right now if 5.6M and vim is 1.6M.
All of vim's dependent libraries are in /lib.
ARe there any objections to moving the vim executable and the symlink of
vi -> vim to /bin?
One
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/vim/vim-7.3-fixes-524.patch
>>
>>
>>
>> Apply with:
>>
>> patch -Np1 -i ../vim-7.3-fixes-524.patch
>>
>> and then build normally.
> Just did it. Thank yo
On 20-05-2012 15:41, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>> I am posting this to two lists because Vim is common to both. Of
>> course, discussion and opinions, if any, could be different in each one.
>>>
>>> While so
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> I am posting this to two lists because Vim is common to both. Of
> course, discussion and opinions, if any, could be different in each one.
>>
>> While some softwares are rushing new versions even weekly, others
> stic
Thanks for the replies, Bruce and Ken.
On 19-05-2012 13:44, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> I am posting this to two lists because Vim is common to both. Of
> course, discussion and opinions, if any, could be different in each
> one.
>>
>> While som
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 09:19:10AM -0700, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> I am posting this to two lists because Vim is common to both. Of course,
> discussion and opinions, if any, could be different in each one.
>
> While some softwares are rushing new versions even weekly, other
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> I am posting this to two lists because Vim is common to both. Of
course, discussion and opinions, if any, could be different in each one.
>
> While some softwares are rushing new versions even weekly, others
stick to a "main" one and leave
I am posting this to two lists because Vim is common to both. Of course,
discussion and opinions, if any, could be different in each one.
While some softwares are rushing new versions even weekly, others stick to a
"main" one and leave the minor versions/corrections in their reposito
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:25 AM, 侯红勋 wrote:
> Runtime files are included in the main tarball now. There are no
> separate extra and lang tar ball now.
Thanks. I'll report it to the jhalfs list. The lang tarball was hard coded in.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:52:07 -0700, Troy Will wrote:
> Prior to the recent upgrade to vim 7.3 mention was made of optional
> unpacking of vim-7.x-lang.tar.gz. For example, "First, unpack both
> vim-7.2.tar.bz2 and (optionally) vim-7.2-lang.tar.gz archives into the
> same directo
On 2010年08月18日 15:52, Troy Will wrote:
> Prior to the recent upgrade to vim 7.3 mention was made of optional
> unpacking of vim-7.x-lang.tar.gz. For example, "First, unpack both
> vim-7.2.tar.bz2 and (optionally) vim-7.2-lang.tar.gz archives into the
> same directory." H
Prior to the recent upgrade to vim 7.3 mention was made of optional
unpacking of vim-7.x-lang.tar.gz. For example, "First, unpack both
vim-7.2.tar.bz2 and (optionally) vim-7.2-lang.tar.gz archives into the
same directory." However, any mention of vim-7.3-lang.tar.gz in
vim.xml has been r
Before you release 6.5, look at this: the Vim patch is out of date.
The patch level is now 234, and we gotta do somethin' to update it!!!
William
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Me again!
>
> I seem to have an excess of man pages from vim. It's possible I've
> fubar'd something when I removed my own "everything UTF-8" commands,
> it's equally possible vim has always done this duplication. So I'll
&
Me again!
I seem to have an excess of man pages from vim. It's possible I've
fubar'd something when I removed my own "everything UTF-8" commands,
it's equally possible vim has always done this duplication. So I'll
start by asking if other people have this:
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2226
When I do:
patch -Np1 -i ../vim-7.2-fixes-3.patch
echo '#define SYS_VIMRC_FILE "/etc/vimrc"' >> src/feature.h
./configure --prefix=/usr --enable-multibyte
make
make DESTDIR=/tmp/vim install
I get:
/tmp/vim:
/tmp/vim/u
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Noted in DJ's book that he adds the installation of VIM to
> Chapter 5. I do the same on my builds as well.
>
> However, I believe I remember that the community's consensus
> is that it not be there.
>
> Thoughts from o
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Noted in DJ's book that he adds the installation of VIM to
> Chapter 5. I do the same on my builds as well.
Please disregard. I was looking at DJ's chapter 6.
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfro
Hi all,
Noted in DJ's book that he adds the installation of VIM to
Chapter 5. I do the same on my builds as well.
However, I believe I remember that the community's consensus
is that it not be there.
Thoughts from others?
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/l
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Thanks guys. Sorry for forgetting to commit the patch yesterday. Bruce, I
> re-diffed the patch to remove the fuzz warnings, though I remember now that
> we don't normally do that. As such, I've reverted the patches.ent portion
> of the Vim-7.
On Monday 14 May 2007 15:25:22 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jens Stroebel wrote:
> > Hello again;
> >
> > While keeping track with the changes in the LFS devel book, I came
> > across the vim-7.0 -> 7.1 update.
> >
> > The patch-list at
&g
Jens Stroebel wrote:
> Hello again;
>
> While keeping track with the changes in the LFS devel book, I came
> across the vim-7.0 -> 7.1 update.
>
> The patch-list at
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter03/patches.html
>
&
On 5/14/07, Jens Stroebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> While keeping track with the changes in the LFS devel book, I came
> across the vim-7.0 -> 7.1 update.
>
> The patch-list at
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter03/patches.html
>
>
Hello again;
While keeping track with the changes in the LFS devel book, I came
across the vim-7.0 -> 7.1 update.
The patch-list at
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter03/patches.html
references the URL for the mandir-patch:
h
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:05:51AM -0400, Robert Connolly wrote:
> It gives us an editor in /. I'm not sure about standards conformance, about
> moving vim to /bin, but its a pretty usefull thing to have in single user
> mode or whenever /usr isn't mounted.
That is true --
On Wednesday March 28 2007 11:17, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> However, the reason I'm posting, Robert, is to ask you not to
> top-post. We get on folks all the time about it, yet you as a
> developer in the community set a bad example when you do it.
Okay. I don't think I've read the faq/#netiquette b
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 03/28/07 10:09 CST:
> [snip top-posting]
I'm indifferent to your proposal, though I lean to doing it if
indeed it turns out that Vim works identically.
However, the reason I'm posting, Robert, is to ask you not to
top-post. We get on folks all t
Oops, sorry, I ment:
if (isdirectory("/usr/share/vim"))
syntax on
endif
On Wednesday March 28 2007 11:05, Robert Connolly wrote:
>...
> if ("/usr/share/vim")
> if has('syntax')
> syntax on
> endif
> endif
pgpH3mq4ausAK.pgp
Descriptio
Hello. With a small change to the vimrc file it looks like vim can be
installed to /bin without complaining about missing /usr:
if ("/usr/share/vim")
if has('syntax')
syntax on
endif
endif
Build Vim normally, then move /usr/bin/vim to /bin/vim. Some packages like
Sudo
On Wednesday March 28 2007 10:20, Kevin Day wrote:
> Perhaps that is a test for syntax being supported in vim and not being
> available.
> In that case, have the /bin/vim built with syntax off and the
> /usr/bin/vim built with syntax.
>
> Hopefully the PREFIX has /usr/bin before
On 3/28/07, Jan Dvořák <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Connolly wrote:
> > Someone emailed me the fix for vimrc:
> >
> > if ("/usr/share/vim")
> > if has('syntax')
> > syntax on
> > endif
> > endif
> This snippe
Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
> Now.I would like to update the vimrc page.I think it doesn't provide
> any serious enhancement as it claims.
Those are good ideas, but we all have different ways of working. For
example, below is mine. I don't use the graphic version so those areas
are not applicable t
This is getting bigger than I initially thought but personally I like it
this way.
If any of you with enough free time and some knowledge in vim internals,
please review it.
In any case I will try to open a ticket in the next days.
Index: postlfs/config/vimrc.xml
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
http://ftp.at.vim.org/pub/vim/unix/vim-&vim-version;.tar.bz2";>
ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/unix/vim-&vim-version;.tar.bz2";>
@@ -138,6 +126,16 @@
echo '#define SYS_GVIMRC_FILE "/etc/gvimrc"' >> src/feature.h &&
./configure --
On Sat, Feb 10, at 10:05 Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
>
> For what is worth I am running these tests under a system with
> gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20070108 (prerelease)
> and glibc from cvs
> (GNU libc) 2.5.90
> but I don't know if that makes a difference,I think not.
>
I also run the tests,under an old inst
hen I run the testsuite in LFS.
>
I was based my words in one mail by Tony in past December.
However,running now the tests,I am not taking any kind of these warnings
( I have linked vim against perl/python and ruby),as far it concerns the
various
scripting languages.
I am taking only the f
Gilles Espinasse kirjoitti:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Robert Connolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Hardened LFS Development List"
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 9:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Install Vim to /bin?
>
>> I copied vim,
Hi. I'm not sure about FHS compliance or whatever, but Vim is the only
interactive editor we have in the base system. Other than Sed and Awk there
isn't really any way to edit any system files unless /usr is mounted.
If we had Ed it might be a different story, but I think Vim
Στις Πεμ 30 Νοε 2006 21:14 : (GMT+2), I wrote
> Hi lfs-dev
...
> Now, since we have already applied huge patch 14.patch
> which contains greek and russian translations of tutor in UTF-8 enc
> next commande can be changed to:
> rm -fv
Hi lfs-dev
Please consider changing the lines after
make install
to something like:
"In any locale, programme vimtutor tries to find a translation
of tutor in the appropriate language and encoding. If it fails to do so,
it loads a copy of the tutor in english "
Lines ...vim-7.0-l
Robert Connolly wrote:
It's not necessary, but we're using -v everywhere possible, because its more
verbose and educational. I'm just pointing out a place where it's missing.
Thanks Robert. These and the Util-Linux command you reported have all
been fixed in r7851.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http:
plain what is being done
>
> So '-v' is not necessary.
>
> 2006/10/22, Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > In chapter06/vim.html:
> >
> > rm -f /usr/share/vim/vim70/tutor/tutor.{gr,pl,ru,sk}
> > rm -f /usr/share/vim/vim70/tutor/tutor.??.*
>
From man rm:
-v, --verbose:
explain what is being done
So '-v' is not necessary.
2006/10/22, Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
In chapter06/vim.html:
rm -f /usr/share/vim/vim70/tutor/tutor.{gr,pl,ru,sk}
rm -f /usr/share/vim/vim70/tutor/tutor.??.*
Should those
In chapter06/vim.html:
rm -f /usr/share/vim/vim70/tutor/tutor.{gr,pl,ru,sk}
rm -f /usr/share/vim/vim70/tutor/tutor.??.*
Should those have -v?
robert
pgp0U4a7WTxid.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 08:39:18PM +0200, Uli Fahrenberg wrote:
>
> ISTR some problems with symlinking man pages, the most obvious being that
BLFS has a compressdoc switch. It is mentioned in the LFS book. Seeing
as how a proper method is given, a workaround for other methods that may
be broken i
Archaic, Apr 5, 12:00 -0600:
If symlinking vim to vi (which tends to suggest vi isn't installed), the
vim manpage should also be symlinked. If there are no objections, I'll
either do this or ticket it for later.
No need for ticketing, it's already been. Twice, at least
If symlinking vim to vi (which tends to suggest vi isn't installed), the
vim manpage should also be symlinked. If there are no objections, I'll
either do this or ticket it for later.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Sc
Hello,
recently there was a change that moves Vim documentation to
/usr/share/doc. However, that doesn't work for me on the UTF-8 LiveCD.
Testcase:
vim
:help version6
Vim still tries to open /usr/share/vim64/doc/tags and doesn't find that
file. Please either revert the chang
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
make HELPSUBLOC=/usr/share/doc/vim-6.3 -C src
make HELPSUBLOC=/usr/share/doc/vim-6.3 -C src install
The above could be replaced with a sed:
sed -i 's:$(VIMRTLOC)$(HELPSUBDIR):/usr/share/doc/vim-6.3:' src/Makefile
./configure ...
make
make install
Tha
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Yes, that would be better. I wonder how much trouble it is to point
just the docs of /usr/share/vim/vim63 over to /usr/share/doc. There is
a whole bunch of stuff installed in /usr/share/vim/vim63 other than
the docs.
I started playing with this, and I got it to work
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 02:01:50PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> Perhaps the sed instructions could be modified to put the *one* file
> it installs into a /usr/share/doc/sed-4.1.4 directory?
Agreed. I will BZ it.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
H
Archaic wrote these words on 08/03/05 13:51 CST:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 11:45:37AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>A symlink from /usr/share/doc to the docs stashed away in
>>/usr/share/vim/vim63/doc would be nice. I like it when the docs are
>>located in a spot
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 11:45:37AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> A symlink from /usr/share/doc to the docs stashed away in
> /usr/share/vim/vim63/doc would be nice. I like it when the docs are
> located in a spot where you can find them. :-)
I like the idea of a /usr/share/doc/
Hi all,
Just a suggestion for the Vim instructions. Discuss, disregard or
whatever!
A symlink from /usr/share/doc to the docs stashed away in
/usr/share/vim/vim63/doc would be nice. I like it when the docs are
located in a spot where you can find them. :-)
ln -v -s ../vim/vim63/doc /usr/share
; src/feature.h"
Is that second line (for gvimrc) really necessary? Vim GUI can't even be
compiled at this point, and the gvimrc file isn't automatically created,
so there's no reason to change where vim looks for it.
It is necessary for BLFS when we give the user the proced
27; >> src/feature.h"
>
> Is that second line (for gvimrc) really necessary? Vim GUI can't even be
> compiled at this point, and the gvimrc file isn't automatically created,
> so there's no reason to change where vim looks for it.
It is necessary for BLFS when we g
"...Then, change the default locations of the vimrc and gvimrc
configuration files to /etc:
echo '#define SYS_VIMRC_FILE "/etc/vimrc"' >> src/feature.h
echo '#define SYS_GVIMRC_FILE "/etc/gvimrc"' >> src/feature.h"
Is that se
Randy McMurchy wrote:
LFS-SVN has a patch for VIM-6.3 to fix a security issue. Do we want
to update the 6.0pre1 branch with this patch.
I am entering a BZ item for BLFS-SVN, but I think we should get this
patch into the pre-1 branch as well.
Thoughts?
If you fix it in svn, I can merge it into 6.0
If someone is interested, a week ago I improve fstab.vim too. The diff is attached.
--- /usr/src/vim63/runtime/syntax/fstab.vim 2003-04-30 16:36:32.0
+0300
+++ /usr/share/vim/vim63/syntax/fstab.vim 2005-03-05 11:40:56.0
+0200
@@ -20,19 +20,19 @@
" Device
syn cl
I noticed in creating my /etc/fstab that VIM 6.3 was missing some keyword
definitions for some of the newer syntax (e.g. sysfs, pri=, etc.). I added
these to my VIM syntax file (subject). The diff is attached.
Hope this is useful to someone else.
Thanks,
Jaeson
--
No, not THAT Evil One
61 matches
Mail list logo
