Vim version 7.2a ready for BETA testing
Bram Moolenaar
Hello Vim users,
Announcing: Vim (Vi IMproved) version 7.2a BETA
This is a BETA release of Vim 7.2. It consists of Vim 7.1 plus all
patches, updated runtime files and some more.
I expect this to be reasonable stable, since most of the patches have
been used by many people already. However, I did include several
patches the last few days, this might break something.
Please report every problem you find! The time until a 7.2 release
depends on how many problems are reported.
The biggest addition is floating support. Once you have installed Vim
7.2a BETA you can find details about the changes since Vim 7.1 with
":help version-7.2".
Testing
-------
This is a BETA test version. Please give it a good test and report
anything that isn't right. That includes a crash but also a typo in the
documentation.
I will not make an Amiga or OS/2 binary for Vim 7.2a. A Mac version is
hopefully available soon on http://macvim.org/ and/or from the MacVim
project at http://code.google.com/p/macvim/
Gratitude
---------
If you like Vim, this is the way to say thanks:
http://iccf-holland.org/clinic.html
Where to get it
---------------
All files can be found below this directory:
ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/unstable/
Information about which files to download for what system (don't use the
links, they are still for Vim 7.1):
http://www.vim.org/download.php
A list of mirror sites can be found here:
http://www.vim.org/mirrors.php
Vim 7.2a is also available from CVS (as soon as it finishes uploading).
Subversion will follow later.
http://www.vim.org/cvs.php
http://www.vim.org/subversion.php
Aap is still at 7.1.
An overview of the files below "unstable":
UNIX:
unix/vim-7.2a.tar.bz2 sources + runtime files, bzip2 compressed
MS-WINDOWS one-size-fits-all:
pc/gvim72a.exe self-installing, includes all runtime files
VARIOUS:
extra/vim-7.2a-extra.tar.gz source files for non-Unix platforms
extra/vim-7.2a-lang.tar.gz multi-language files
doc/vim72ahtml.zip help files converted to HTML
MS-WINDOWS separate files:
pc/vim72art.zip runtime files
pc/vim72alang.zip files for translated messages and menus
pc/gvim72a.zip GUI binary for Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP
pc/gvim72aole.zip GUI binary with OLE support
pc/gvim72a_s.zip GUI binary for Windows 3.1 (untested)
pc/vim72ad32.zip console version for MS-DOS/Windows 95/98
pc/vim72aw32.zip console version for Windows NT/2000/XP
pc/vim72asrc.zip sources for PC (with CR-LF)
DIFFS TO PREVIOUS RELEASE:
unix/vim-7.1-7.2a.diff.gz sources + runtime files
extra/vim-7.1-7.2a-extra.diff.gz extra files
extra/vim-7.1-7.2a-lang.diff.gz multi-language files
There is no 16-bit DOS version, I could not build it.
Mailing lists
-------------
For user questions you can turn to the Vim mailing list. There are a
lot of tips, scripts and solutions. You can ask your Vim questions, but
only if you subscribe. See http://www.vim.org/maillist.php#vim
If you want to help Vim development, discuss new features or get the
latest patches, subscribe to the vim-dev mailing list. See
http://www.vim.org/maillist.php#vim-dev
Subject specific lists:
Multi-byte issues: http://www.vim.org/maillist.php#vim-multibyte
Macintosh issues: http://www.vim.org/maillist.php#vim-mac
Before you ask a question you should search the archives, someone may
already have given the answer.
Reporting bugs
--------------
Send them to <bu...@vim.org>. Please describe the problem precisely.
All the time spent on answering mail is subtracted from the time that is
spent on improving Vim! Always give a reproducible example and try to
find out which settings or other things influence the appearance of the
bug. Try starting without your own vimrc file: "vim -u NONE". Try
different machines if possible. See ":help bugs" in Vim. Send me a
patch if you can!
If something needs discussing with other developers, send a message to the
vim-dev mailing list. You need to subscribe first.
Happy Vimming!
--
From "know your smileys":
:~) A man with a tape recorder up his nose
/// Bram Moolenaar -- Br...@Moolenaar.net -- 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 ///
Bram Moolenaar
Christian MICHON
> Announcing: Vim (Vi IMproved) version 7.2a BETA
>
compiled successfully with uclibc-0.9.29 + gtk-1.2.10 on DetaolB.
Test results:
ALL DONE
nice work!
Thanks!
--
Christian
--
http://detaolb.sourceforge.net/, a linux distribution for Qemu with Git inside !
Tony Mechelynck
>
> Hello Vim users,
>
>
> Announcing: Vim (Vi IMproved) version 7.2a BETA
>
>
> This is a BETA release of Vim 7.2. It consists of Vim 7.1 plus all
> patches, updated runtime files and some more.
>
> I expect this to be reasonable stable, since most of the patches have
> been used by many people already. However, I did include several
> patches the last few days, this might break something.
>
> Please report every problem you find! The time until a 7.2 release
> depends on how many problems are reported.
>
> The biggest addition is floating support. Once you have installed Vim
> 7.2a BETA you can find details about the changes since Vim 7.1 with
> ":help version-7.2".
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> This is a BETA test version. Please give it a good test and report
> anything that isn't right. That includes a crash but also a typo in the
> documentation.
>
> I will not make an Amiga or OS/2 binary for Vim 7.2a. A Mac version is
> hopefully available soon on http://macvim.org/ and/or from the MacVim
> project at http://code.google.com/p/macvim/
I've reached the end of configure and gcc is busy churning out its objects.
I notice there has been a number of small changes in the configure
script, and (at least) one argument has changed name: --with-tcl= has
become --with-tclsh= which is more logical but requires changing your
configure arguments if you use that one. (I'm not sure but I think it
may be possible to omit this parameter altogether if your tclsh is at a
more or less "standard" location.)
Best regards,
Tony.
--
Beware of self-styled experts: an ex is a has-been, and a spurt is a
drip under pressure.
François Ingelrest
> Announcing: Vim (Vi IMproved) version 7.2a BETA
Compiled and installed fine on Ubuntu 8.04 with GTK2.
Patrick Texier
> MS-WINDOWS one-size-fits-all:
> pc/gvim72a.exe self-installing, includes all runtime files
gvim.exe doesn't run on Windows 98 (Second Edition 4.10.2222.A French):
I have an alert box "Program start error: c:\vim\vim72a\gvim.exe file
needs an Windows newer version. Update your Windows version".
I will compile it.
--
Patrick Texier
vim:syntax=mail:ai:ts=4:et:tw=72
Edward L. Fox
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Bram Moolenaar <Br...@moolenaar.net> wrote:
> [...]
> Vim 7.2a is also available from CVS (as soon as it finishes uploading).
> Subversion will follow later.
> http://www.vim.org/cvs.php
> http://www.vim.org/subversion.php
The 7.2a BETA is already in Subversion repository. Please check it
out by:
svn co https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/branches/vim7.2/
If you had already checked out Vim 7.1 from the Subversion repository,
please run:
svn co https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/branches/vim7.2/
In the top level of your checking-out directory to switch to 7.2
branch.
Note: https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/vim7 will still
point to the 7.1 branch until 7.2 is finally release.
> [...]
Happy Vimming!
Subversion mirror maintainer,
Edward L. Fox
Vladimir Marek
Solaris 9 + SunStudio 12 seems to work fine. Just single nit:
./configure says
========================================================================
checking sys/ptem.h presence... yes
configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: present but cannot be compiled
configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: check for missing prerequisite headers?
configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: see the Autoconf documentation
configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: section "Present But Cannot Be Compiled"
configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: proceeding with the preprocessor's result
configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: in the future, the compiler will take precedence
========================================================================
Reason is that sys/ptem.h needs sys/stream.h being included first ( I
found it documented here
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Header-Portability.html
)
It seems to go away when I modify the configure.in like this, but I'm
not autoconf expert ...:
========================================================================
--- vim72a/src/configure.in út črn 24 12:01:39 2008
+++ vim72ax/src/configure.in st črn 25 08:56:18 2008
@@ -2071,10 +2071,14 @@
termcap.h fcntl.h sgtty.h sys/ioctl.h sys/time.h sys/types.h termio.h \
iconv.h langinfo.h math.h unistd.h stropts.h errno.h \
sys/resource.h sys/systeminfo.h locale.h \
- sys/stream.h sys/ptem.h termios.h libc.h sys/statfs.h \
+ sys/stream.h termios.h libc.h sys/statfs.h \
poll.h sys/poll.h pwd.h utime.h sys/param.h libintl.h \
libgen.h util/debug.h util/msg18n.h frame.h \
sys/acl.h sys/access.h sys/sysctl.h sys/sysinfo.h wchar.h wctype.h)
+AC_CHECK_HEADERS([sys/ptem.h], [], [],
+[#if defined(sun)
+# include <sys/stream.h>
+#endif])
========================================================================
Cheers !
--
Vlad
John Beckett
> Announcing: Vim (Vi IMproved) version 7.2a BETA
I have done a successful compile, build, run and 'make test' on:
- Windows XP
- Fedora 8 Linux
test11.in has:
Note: This test will fail if "gzip" is not available.
test30.in perhaps should say:
Note: This test will fail if "cat" is not available.
With these two provisos, all the tests run on Windows.
John
Vladimir Marek
Oh, didn't know that there's make test :)
When I run it, I can see
================================== make test ===================================
make[2]: Leaving directory `/share/chroot/on81/tmp/vim72a/src'
if test -n "" -a -f po/Makefile; then \
cd po; make -f Makefile check VIM=../vim; \
fi
if test vim != vim -a ! -e vim; then \
ln -s vim vim; \
fi
/bin/sh: test: argument expected
make[1]: [test] Error 1 (ignored)
================================================================================
Thing is that -e is not supported by /bin/sh on Solaris. I would suggest
replacing '-e' by '-x'.
Cheers
--
Vlad
Hugh Sasse
> > I have done a successful compile, build, run and 'make test' on:
> [...]
>
> Oh, didn't know that there's make test :)
>
> When I run it, I can see
>
> ================================== make test ===================================
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/share/chroot/on81/tmp/vim72a/src'
> if test -n "" -a -f po/Makefile; then \
> cd po; make -f Makefile check VIM=../vim; \
> fi
> if test vim != vim -a ! -e vim; then \
> ln -s vim vim; \
> fi
> /bin/sh: test: argument expected
> make[1]: [test] Error 1 (ignored)
> ================================================================================
I don't get that on Solaris 9 sparc.
I'm using GNU make, don't know if that makes a difference to you.
GNU Make 3.81
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
This program built for sparc-sun-solaris2.9
>
> Thing is that -e is not supported by /bin/sh on Solaris. I would suggest
> replacing '-e' by '-x'.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Vlad
>
Hugh
Vladimir Marek
> > make[2]: Leaving directory `/share/chroot/on81/tmp/vim72a/src'
> > if test -n "" -a -f po/Makefile; then \
> > cd po; make -f Makefile check VIM=../vim; \
> > fi
> > if test vim != vim -a ! -e vim; then \
> > ln -s vim vim; \
> > fi
> > /bin/sh: test: argument expected
> > make[1]: [test] Error 1 (ignored)
> > ================================================================================
> I don't get that on Solaris 9 sparc.
> I'm using GNU make, don't know if that makes a difference to you.
The make itself won't be difference, the shell used by the make program
is.
$ /bin/sh -c '[ -e /bin/ls ] && echo exists'
/bin/sh: test: argument expected
$ /bin/bash -c '[ -e /bin/ls ] && echo exists'
exists
$ /bin/ksh -c '[ -e /bin/ls ] && echo exists'
exists
mine src/Makefile contains
SHELL = /bin/sh
What does yours ?
--
Vlad
Hugh Sasse
it carries on anyway, because of the leading - sign. I've done this:
brains hgs 29 %> rcsdiff -u !$
rcsdiff -u Makefile
===================================================================
RCS file: Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -r1.1 Makefile
--- /tmp/T083aiz6 Wed Jun 25 12:19:34 2008
+++ Makefile Wed Jun 25 12:19:29 2008
@@ -1742,6 +1742,7 @@
-if test -n "$(MAKEMO)" -a -f $(PODIR)/Makefile; then \
cd $(PODIR); $(MAKE) -f Makefile check VIM=../$(VIMTARGET); \
fi
+ -echo "YIKES: NON-SOLARIS TEST NEXT"
-if test $(VIMTARGET) != vim -a ! -e vim; then \
ln -s $(VIMTARGET) vim; \
fi
brains hgs 30 %> cd ..
brains hgs 31 %> gmake check
which helped me find:
link.sh: Linked fine with a few libraries removed
gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/export/home/Scratch/hgs/vim72a/src'
if test -n "" -a -f po/Makefile; then \
cd po; gmake -f Makefile check VIM=../vim; \
fi
echo "YIKES: NON-SOLARIS TEST NEXT"
YIKES: NON-SOLARIS TEST NEXT
if test vim != vim -a ! -e vim; then \
ln -s vim vim; \
fi
/bin/sh: test: argument expected
gmake[1]: [test] Error 1 (ignored)
cd testdir; gmake -f Makefile gui VIMPROG=../vim
so I've reproduced this.
I can't find a GNU autoconf macro to test for test, preferring a GNU
version. That would usually work. I found this:
http://www.koders.com/noncode/fid1C9AA0D12BF4232D7ED2DE50745B7AB78FC8F839.aspx
but AC_PROG_TEST depends on AC_PATH_PROG_VERIFY, which depends on
the existence of a working test.
I'm at the limits of how I can help now.
Furthermore, I've confirmed your other results below.:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Vladimir Marek wrote:
> > > ================================== make test ===================================
[...]
> > > if test vim != vim -a ! -e vim; then \
> > > ln -s vim vim; \
> > > fi
> > > /bin/sh: test: argument expected
> > > make[1]: [test] Error 1 (ignored)
> > > ================================================================================
>
>
> > I don't get that on Solaris 9 sparc.
> > I'm using GNU make, don't know if that makes a difference to you.
>
> The make itself won't be difference, the shell used by the make program
> is.
Yes, I thought it would pick bash, but it seems not.
>
> $ /bin/sh -c '[ -e /bin/ls ] && echo exists'
> /bin/sh: test: argument expected
/bin/sh: test: argument expected
> $ /bin/bash -c '[ -e /bin/ls ] && echo exists'
> exists
exists
> $ /bin/ksh -c '[ -e /bin/ls ] && echo exists'
> exists
exists
OK, all the same as yours. What's happening here?
>
> mine src/Makefile contains
>
> SHELL = /bin/sh
Same as yours. I definitely don't see the message you got. I could
post you a Typescript file, but it's big, and not very entertaining.
I get ALL TESTS DONE, with no complaints about errors.
>
> What does yours ?
>
> --
> Vlad
>
Hugh
Vladimir Marek
> it carries on anyway, because of the leading - sign. I've done this:
Ah, I never said that the test fails, but looking at my previous message
I have to admit that it sounds so.
[...]
> I can't find a GNU autoconf macro to test for test, preferring a GNU
> version. That would usually work. I found this:
I do not think it's necessary. '-e' tests if file exits, but this option
is not supported by solaris /bin/sh (but it is supported by ksh and
bash). I suggested using '-x' instead, which tests if file exists and is
executable, and which is supported even by /bin/sh.
> $ /bin/sh -c '[ -e /bin/ls ] && echo exists'
> /bin/sh: test: argument expected
> $ /bin/bash -c '[ -e /bin/ls ] && echo exists'
> exists
> $ /bin/ksh -c '[ -e /bin/ls ] && echo exists'
> exists
> OK, all the same as yours. What's happening here?
From the solaris man page
=============================== test(1) ================================
...
-e file True if file exists. (Not avail-
able in sh.)
...
========================================================================
I just suggest changing '-x' for '-e'. But the tests are running fine
even without this change.
Sorry for the confusion.
--
Vlad
Hugh Sasse
> > I've messed this up. I *do* get the test statement to fail, but
> > it carries on anyway, because of the leading - sign. I've done this:
>
> Ah, I never said that the test fails, but looking at my previous message
> I have to admit that it sounds so.
No, you didn't say that, but when I looked back through the output I
couldn't find the failure among the skipped errors.
>
> [...]
>
> > I can't find a GNU autoconf macro to test for test, preferring a GNU
> > version. That would usually work. I found this:
>
> I do not think it's necessary. '-e' tests if file exits, but this option
You're right: that's a shell function. Sorry.
> is not supported by solaris /bin/sh (but it is supported by ksh and
> bash). I suggested using '-x' instead, which tests if file exists and is
> executable, and which is supported even by /bin/sh.
>
> > $ /bin/sh -c '[ -e /bin/ls ] && echo exists'
> > /bin/sh: test: argument expected
>
> > $ /bin/bash -c '[ -e /bin/ls ] && echo exists'
> > exists
>
> > $ /bin/ksh -c '[ -e /bin/ls ] && echo exists'
> > exists
>
> > OK, all the same as yours. What's happening here?
>
> From the solaris man page
> =============================== test(1) ================================
> ...
> -e file True if file exists. (Not avail-
> able in sh.)
> ...
> ========================================================================
Sorry, I understand now what is happening, but wrote that bit before
I realised that I'd failed to see the problem in my output. [Then I
had to go for lunch or they'd run out again, so left too hastily. I
wanted to let you know I'd replicated your problem anyway.]
>
> I just suggest changing '-x' for '-e'. But the tests are running fine
> even without this change.
I'm testing if the problem disappears if the whole operation is run
under /bin/ksh in the first place...
No. Starting from ./configure under /bin/ksh doesn't fix this.
That's not my login shell though. Indeed, $SHELL is still set
to /bin/tcsh. So I `export SHELL=/bin/ksh` and rebuild && test.
No, the src/Makefile doesn't get rewritten, so the bug is still there.
I think your fix is the only course of action, with the experience
I have.
By the way, which version of Solaris are you on? Just wondering how
long this will persist.
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
All the confusion was my fault, not seeing it, and failing to edit
out "What's happening here?"
>
> --
> Vlad
>
Thank you,
Hugh
Vladimir Marek
> > I just suggest changing '-x' for '-e'. But the tests are running fine
> > even without this change.
>
> I'm testing if the problem disappears if the whole operation is run
> under /bin/ksh in the first place...
>
> No. Starting from ./configure under /bin/ksh doesn't fix this.
> That's not my login shell though. Indeed, $SHELL is still set
> to /bin/tcsh. So I `export SHELL=/bin/ksh` and rebuild && test.
> No, the src/Makefile doesn't get rewritten, so the bug is still there.
Makefiles are not generated, as you noted.
> I think your fix is the only course of action, with the experience
> I have.
>
> By the way, which version of Solaris are you on? Just wondering how
> long this will persist.
Solaris 9 and also latest development. It will persist, noone dares to
touch old /bin/sh because of compatibility :)
--
Vlad
Hugh Sasse
[...]
>
> Makefiles are not generated, as you noted.
[...]
> > By the way, which version of Solaris are you on? Just wondering how
> > long this will persist.
>
> Solaris 9 and also latest development. It will persist, noone dares to
> touch old /bin/sh because of compatibility :)
Good point. I suggest you submit a patch to Bram. I'd do this for you,
especially as it's small, but you should get the credit for the fix.
>
> --
> Vlad
>
Hugh
Bill McCarthy
> The 7.2a BETA is already in Subversion repository. Please check it
> out by:
>
> svn co
> https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/branches/vim7.2/
>
> If you had already checked out Vim 7.1 from the Subversion repository,
> please run:
>
> svn co
> https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/branches/vim7.2/
>
> In the top level of your checking-out directory to switch to 7.2
> branch.
>
> Note: https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/vim7 will still
> point to the 7.1 branch until 7.2 is finally release.
Edward, I'm a little confused with your terminology - "top
level of your checking out directory".
I'm running on WinXP. The top level of my vim directory is:
Directory of C:\vim\*
6/24/2008 22:59 <DIR> backup
6/22/2008 23:39 <DIR> vim-fp
7/31/2007 11:18 <DIR> vim70
6/22/2008 22:34 <DIR> vim71
5/11/2008 23:25 <DIR> vim71_svn
6/24/2008 22:53 <DIR> vim72a
6/24/2008 21:45 <DIR> vimfiles
The top level of my vim svn directory is:
Directory of C:\vim\vim71_svn\*
9/09/2007 12:03 <DIR> farsi
9/09/2007 12:03 <DIR> libs
9/09/2007 12:03 <DIR> nsis
9/09/2007 12:01 <DIR> pixmaps
6/06/2008 8:45 <DIR> runtime
6/21/2008 23:28 <DIR> src
I believe I initially obtained my current SVN download by:
cdd c:\vim
svn co https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/branches/vim7.1/ vim71_svn
I think I would do about the same thing for 7.2:
cdd c:\vim
svn co https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/branches/vim7.2/ vim72_svn
Does that appear correct?
Also I have an alias to update my files. My current alias,
say sv71, does:
pushd c:\vim\vim71_svn & svn up & svn log --limit 1 & popd
I should now create another alias, say sv72, that does:
pushd c:\vim\vim72_svn & svn up & svn log --limit 1 & popd
This way, I should be able to update vim71_svn with 'sv71'
and update vim72_svn with 'sv72'. Does that also appear
correct?
--
Best regards,
Bill
Bram Moolenaar
Vladimir Marek wrote:
If the link "vim" already exists but is not executable, then '-x vim'
fails.
How about using "-r vim". If some file/directory/link "vim" exists then
it's probably readable. Is "-r" supported by all versions of 'test'?
--
You can't have everything. Where would you put it?
-- Steven Wright
Bram Moolenaar
Patrick Texier wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:38:14 +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> > MS-WINDOWS one-size-fits-all:
> > pc/gvim72a.exe self-installing, includes all runtime files
>
> gvim.exe doesn't run on Windows 98 (Second Edition 4.10.2222.A French):
> I have an alert box "Program start error: c:\vim\vim72a\gvim.exe file
> needs an Windows newer version. Update your Windows version".
>
> I will compile it.
Bummer. I intended to this self-installing executable to run on all
MS-Windows systems. Windows 98 should be OK (with some service packs
added).
I switched to the Visual C++ 2008 express version. Mainly because it's
the simplest to use. But if it locks out Windows 98 users that's a bit
of a problem. Not sure if it's possible to go back to the 2003 or 2005
version now (they are downloads).
George, is this a matter of compilation flags, or is the C++ 2008
version not able to build for Windows 98? Or is this a matter of
building with an older set of SDK files?
I also updated the NSIS installer, but I don't think that is relevant.
--
From "know your smileys":
*<|:-) Santa Claus (Ho Ho Ho)
Vladimir Marek
> > make[2]: Leaving directory `/share/chroot/on81/tmp/vim72a/src'
> > if test -n "" -a -f po/Makefile; then \
> > cd po; make -f Makefile check VIM=../vim; \
> > fi
> > if test vim != vim -a ! -e vim; then \
> > ln -s vim vim; \
> > fi
> > /bin/sh: test: argument expected
> > make[1]: [test] Error 1 (ignored)
> > ================================================================================
> >
> > Thing is that -e is not supported by /bin/sh on Solaris. I would suggest
> > replacing '-e' by '-x'.
>
> If the link "vim" already exists but is not executable, then '-x vim'
> fails.
I'm not sure I understand. test operates on the target of the link, and
not on the link itself. And if we have the link pointing to file which
is not executable, would the tests run at all ?
> How about using "-r vim". If some file/directory/link "vim" exists then
> it's probably readable. Is "-r" supported by all versions of 'test'?
-r is supported across all shells on Solaris, so it will also work.
--
Vlad
Vladimir Marek
> especially as it's small, but you should get the credit for the fix.
Well, I thought that single letter change would not require diff, but
I'm happy to attach one :)
Thanks
--
Vlad
Tony Mechelynck
Have you got a bash binary on your system?
If you do, you can use it instead of sh and the error will (I think) go
away. I suppose it is related with the long discussion we had recently
in another thread about the syntax colouring of shell scripts (and in
particular, sh vs. bash vs. ksh vs. POSIX).
(When invoked with the name sh, bash will behave "almost" the way sh
used to. The clinch is tn the "almost".)
Best regards,
Tony.
--
The only really decent thing to do behind a person's back is pat it.
James Vega
I find it interesting that this problematic sh doesn't support -x (which
is required by SUS) but supports -a/-o which are XSI extensions[0]. In
the interest of portability, changing from "test ... -a ..." to
"test ... && test ..." would be better.
[0] - http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/test.html
--
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jame...@jamessan.com>
James Vega
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 06:25:31PM +0200, Vladimir Marek wrote:
> > > Good point. I suggest you submit a patch to Bram. I'd do this for you,
> > > especially as it's small, but you should get the credit for the fix.
> >
> > Well, I thought that single letter change would not require diff, but
> > I'm happy to attach one :)
>
> I find it interesting that this problematic sh doesn't support -x (which
And by -x I mean -e. :)
Mikolaj Machowski
> Hello Vim users,
>
>
> Announcing: Vim (Vi IMproved) version 7.2a BETA
Compiles, Tests ALL DONE, runs fine on Mandriva 2008.0, GTK2, Huge.
m.
Bram Moolenaar
Bram Moolenaar
Vladimir Marek wrote:
Looks almost OK. This should be slightly better:
dnl sys/ptem.h depends on sys/stream.h on Solaris 9
AC_CHECK_HEADERS(sys/ptem.h, [], [],
[#if defined HAVE_SYS_STREAM_H
# include <sys/stream.h>
#endif])
--
From "know your smileys":
<>:-) Bishop
George V. Reilly
>
>
> Patrick Texier wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:38:14 +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>>
>> > MS-WINDOWS one-size-fits-all:
>> > pc/gvim72a.exe self-installing, includes all runtime files
>>
>> gvim.exe doesn't run on Windows 98 (Second Edition 4.10.2222.A French):
>> I have an alert box "Program start error: c:\vim\vim72a\gvim.exe file
>> needs an Windows newer version. Update your Windows version".
>>
>> I will compile it.
>
> Bummer. I intended to this self-installing executable to run on all
> MS-Windows systems. Windows 98 should be OK (with some service packs
> added).
>
> I switched to the Visual C++ 2008 express version. Mainly because it's
> the simplest to use. But if it locks out Windows 98 users that's a bit
> of a problem. Not sure if it's possible to go back to the 2003 or 2005
> version now (they are downloads).
>
> George, is this a matter of compilation flags, or is the C++ 2008
> version not able to build for Windows 98? Or is this a matter of
> building with an older set of SDK files?
Don't know. It's probably something to do with the C runtime. It may
be possible to add some additional compile-time flags.
I have a number of virtual machine images at home with all the
different flavors of VC from VC98 onwards. I'll play around with them
tonight on my newly resuscitated Win64 box.
(Not sure if I still have a Win9x CD so that I can make a Win9x
virtual machine.)
> I also updated the NSIS installer, but I don't think that is relevant.
Speaking of which, how do you actually build gvim72a.exe? I tried to
build a Vim installer several months ago and gave up in complete
frustration. My guess was that you had some additional build scripts
which weren't in the SVN archive.
--
/George V. Reilly geo...@reilly.org
http://www.georgevreilly.com/blog http://blogs.cozi.com/tech
Edward L. Fox
> On Wed 25-Jun-08 2:05am -0600, Edward L. Fox wrote:
>
>>
>> svn co
>> https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/branches/vim7.2/
>>
>> In the top level of your checking-out directory to switch to 7.2
>> branch.
>>
>> Note: https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/vim7 will still
>> point to the 7.1 branch until 7.2 is finally release.
>
> Edward, I'm a little confused with your terminology - "top
> level of your checking out directory".
Sorry, my bad... I was a bit tired at that time and I wrote a wrong
command in my mail... There should be:
svn switch https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/branches/vim7.2/
> I'm running on WinXP. The top level of my vim directory is:
>
> Directory of C:\vim\*
>
> 6/24/2008 22:59 <DIR> backup
> 6/22/2008 23:39 <DIR> vim-fp
> 7/31/2007 11:18 <DIR> vim70
> 6/22/2008 22:34 <DIR> vim71
> 5/11/2008 23:25 <DIR> vim71_svn
> 6/24/2008 22:53 <DIR> vim72a
> 6/24/2008 21:45 <DIR> vimfiles
>
> The top level of my vim svn directory is:
>
> Directory of C:\vim\vim71_svn\*
>
> 9/09/2007 12:03 <DIR> farsi
> 9/09/2007 12:03 <DIR> libs
> 9/09/2007 12:03 <DIR> nsis
> 9/09/2007 12:01 <DIR> pixmaps
> 6/06/2008 8:45 <DIR> runtime
> 6/21/2008 23:28 <DIR> src
>
> I believe I initially obtained my current SVN download by:
>
> cdd c:\vim
> svn co https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/branches/vim7.1/ vim71_svn
>
> I think I would do about the same thing for 7.2:
>
> cdd c:\vim
> svn co https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/branches/vim7.2/ vim72_svn
>
> Does that appear correct?
Yes, it's correct. But you just checked out a brand new directory. I
meant to provide the method to simply switch the existing local
directory to the latest branch rather than check out another
directory. Running the command above will do that.
>
> Also I have an alias to update my files. My current alias,
> say sv71, does:
>
> pushd c:\vim\vim71_svn & svn up & svn log --limit 1 & popd
>
> I should now create another alias, say sv72, that does:
>
> pushd c:\vim\vim72_svn & svn up & svn log --limit 1 & popd
>
> This way, I should be able to update vim71_svn with 'sv71'
> and update vim72_svn with 'sv72'. Does that also appear
> correct?
Vim71 will no longer be updated. So you don't need to keep the alias
for it.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Bill
>
>
Vladimir Marek
> Looks almost OK. This should be slightly better:
>
> dnl sys/ptem.h depends on sys/stream.h on Solaris 9
> AC_CHECK_HEADERS(sys/ptem.h, [], [],
> [#if defined HAVE_SYS_STREAM_H
> # include <sys/stream.h>
> #endif])
Just a nitpick, it's for sure Solaris 8 till latest development build,
so plain "Solaris" instead of "Solaris 9" is more accurate.
Thank you Bram
--
Vlad
Bram Moolenaar
George V. Reilly wrote:
> 2008/6/25 Bram Moolenaar <Br...@moolenaar.net>:
> >
> >
> > Patrick Texier wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:38:14 +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> >>
> >> > MS-WINDOWS one-size-fits-all:
> >> > pc/gvim72a.exe self-installing, includes all runtime files
> >>
> >> gvim.exe doesn't run on Windows 98 (Second Edition 4.10.2222.A French):
> >> I have an alert box "Program start error: c:\vim\vim72a\gvim.exe file
> >> needs an Windows newer version. Update your Windows version".
> >>
> >> I will compile it.
> >
> > Bummer. I intended to this self-installing executable to run on all
> > MS-Windows systems. Windows 98 should be OK (with some service packs
> > added).
> >
> > I switched to the Visual C++ 2008 express version. Mainly because it's
> > the simplest to use. But if it locks out Windows 98 users that's a bit
> > of a problem. Not sure if it's possible to go back to the 2003 or 2005
> > version now (they are downloads).
> >
> > George, is this a matter of compilation flags, or is the C++ 2008
> > version not able to build for Windows 98? Or is this a matter of
> > building with an older set of SDK files?
>
> Don't know. It's probably something to do with the C runtime. It may
> be possible to add some additional compile-time flags.
Might be. I still have the VC 2003 runtime files. Mainly because I
can't uninstall them (the uninstaller was put in a directory called
"Temp", duh).
> I have a number of virtual machine images at home with all the
> different flavors of VC from VC98 onwards. I'll play around with them
> tonight on my newly resuscitated Win64 box.
>
> (Not sure if I still have a Win9x CD so that I can make a Win9x
> virtual machine.)
I still have them all, back to Windows 3.1 :-). I mosty get the cheaper
Update version, so I might actually need them (XP is a full version
though, thanks to some friend :-).
> > I also updated the NSIS installer, but I don't think that is relevant.
>
> Speaking of which, how do you actually build gvim72a.exe? I tried to
> build a Vim installer several months ago and gave up in complete
> frustration. My guess was that you had some additional build scripts
> which weren't in the SVN archive.
The instructions are in Makefile in the top directory. There are no
additional build scripts, but you do need lots of stuff (e.g.,
diff.exe). Getting them from a previous version might help. Or using
empty files.
Anyway, it would be very helpful to find out how to build a gvim.exe
that runs on Windows 98 using VC 2008.
--
I AM THANKFUL...
...for the taxes that I pay because it means that I am employed.
Karsten Hopp
>
> Hello Vim users,
>
>
> Announcing: Vim (Vi IMproved) version 7.2a BETA
>
>
> patches, updated runtime files and some more.
>
> I expect this to be reasonable stable, since most of the patches have
> been used by many people already. However, I did include several
> patches the last few days, this might break something.
>
> Please report every problem you find! The time until a 7.2 release
> depends on how many problems are reported.
Just a minor problem: Erlang header files usually have the extension .hrl
Could you add .hrl to runtime/filetype.vim, please ?
Thanks !
Karsten
George V. Reilly
>> > I also updated the NSIS installer, but I don't think that is relevant.
>>
>> Speaking of which, how do you actually build gvim72a.exe? I tried to
>> build a Vim installer several months ago and gave up in complete
>> frustration. My guess was that you had some additional build scripts
>> which weren't in the SVN archive.
>
> The instructions are in Makefile in the top directory. There are no
> additional build scripts, but you do need lots of stuff (e.g.,
> diff.exe). Getting them from a previous version might help. Or using
> empty files.
>
> Anyway, it would be very helpful to find out how to build a gvim.exe
> that runs on Windows 98 using VC 2008.
Which version of make do you build this Makefile with? Cygwin? Something else?
Bill McCarthy
> Sorry, my bad... I was a bit tired at that time and I wrote a wrong
> command in my mail... There should be:
>
> svn switch https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/branches/vim7.2/
Thanks, but I now think I only want the latest. So I
deleted the only tree and created a new one with:
cdd c:\vim
svn co https://vim.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vim/branches/vim7.2/ svn72
After attempting to patch my Windows distribution with patch
001 I noticed that 2 of the 3 files being patched were
missing. I wrote a simple shell script to copy all the
missing files to the Windows distribution from your SVN tree
created with the above line. Hundred of missing files came
over - now I can apply patched fairly simply - I still have
to strip those annoying 'runtime/' extras in the patches,
but I've always had to do that.
BTW, I see you already have patch 001 now - the 'svn update'
worked perfectly - much nicer that the old CVS.
--
Best regards,
Bill
Bram Moolenaar
George V. Reilly wrote:
> 2008/6/26 Bram Moolenaar <Br...@moolenaar.net>:
> >> > I also updated the NSIS installer, but I don't think that is relevant.
> >>
> >> Speaking of which, how do you actually build gvim72a.exe? I tried to
> >> build a Vim installer several months ago and gave up in complete
> >> frustration. My guess was that you had some additional build scripts
> >> which weren't in the SVN archive.
> >
> > The instructions are in Makefile in the top directory. There are no
> > additional build scripts, but you do need lots of stuff (e.g.,
> > diff.exe). Getting them from a previous version might help. Or using
> > empty files.
> >
> > Anyway, it would be very helpful to find out how to build a gvim.exe
> > that runs on Windows 98 using VC 2008.
>
> Which version of make do you build this Makefile with? Cygwin?
> Something else?
You're supposed to READ the Makefile. The instructions are in the
comments. Most things need manual work, like "open a new console" and
"set environment for XYZ compile". But you can skip the parts to build
for MS-DOS, Windows 3.1 and Win32s. It's pretty tough to find a CD with
VC 4.1 anyway :-).
--
From "know your smileys":
:.-( Crying
Bram Moolenaar
Karten Hopp wrote:
I'll add it.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
95. Only communication in your household is through email.