[lfs-dev] Vim 7.3.xxx

Fernando de Oliveira famobr at yahoo.com.br
Sun May 20 09:42:52 PDT 2012


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 some softwares are rushing new versions even weekly, others
> stick to a "main" one and leave the minor versions/corrections in
> their repositories to be checked out with git or other softwares, and
> this is the case of Vim and MPlayer.
>> 
>> I have noticed that most distributions are changing to upgrade
>> these
> more often, perhaps monthly.
> 
>> Some examples with Vim:
>> 
>> *buntu               7.3.429
>> ArchLinux            7.3.515
>> Fedora               7.3.515
>> Gentoo               7.3.515
>> Mageia               7.3.444
>> Mandriva devel       7.3.486
>> openSUSE Factory     7.3.456
>> 
>> Sometimes, they call it version 7.3 "correction-xxx".
>> 
>> MPlayer has already changed. What do you think about Vim in LFS 
>> and/or BLFS, with a monthly source in Anduin?
> 
> What would be an easier way to maintain these type of changes would
> be to update a patch that is the difference between the base package
> and the svn package.  The update would then amount to adding a new
> patch to the packages repository and changing the patch number in the
> book.
> 
> Note that changes to vim would need to happen in both LFS and BLFS.
> 
> -- Bruce
> 
> 
> 

Apologies for not having rewapped the text and not checked the format of
the table. I am trying to do so since I've read from Ken and Bruce how
to do it (since started posting here, searched TB, and never found where
to limit to 72 characters and gave up; same in yahoo mailer).

I like the idea of using a patch. And this is exactly what they are doing
(Vim and distributions)!

On 19-05-2012 13:57, Ken Moffat wrote:

> In LFS, even more than in BLFS, the preference has always been for 
> released software. We discussed this for vim, probably in the last 
> year, and I thought that we concluded we were going to stick to 
> releases.
> 
> ĸen

But when new things happen, we can discuss again, no?

Ken, it was thinking like you ("bleeding edge"), that I decided to write
the post, after being surprised this week by the direction that even
conservative *buntu took. They (all above) probably have had discussions
that ended up with "remain with 7.3", but later changed the point of
view, from my following their upgrades (except Suse and Mandriva) in VM
here.

We are with Vim 7.3 since at least 2010.

If you visit Vim's site, you will read:

"News               Vim 7.3.524 is the current version"

Due to the numerous bugs for so long relased software, they have the
"Official Vim patches" (which can be concatenated, before applying), at:

ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/patches/7.3/

Of course, we can and should keep building from the old buggy one, but
either if keeping the version name 7.3 or adding the patch number, we
would be consistent with all other patched packages in (B)LFS only if
applying the patches.

<quote>
Official Vim patches
For released versions patches are made available. These fix small or big
problems. Only source code patches are provided.

The patches for released versions of Vim are here [link is above, in
this post]. An overview of what each patch solves is in a README file.
For Vim 7.3 it is this README file.

To apply a patch, you must get the sources, go to the directory where
the "src" directory is located and apply the patch with:
patch -p0 < patchfile >& logfile
To apply multiple patches you can concatenate them and pass the
resulting file to the patch program. It's a good idea to redirect the
output to be able to check for error messages.
<\quote>

-- 
[]s,
Fernando



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list