Hi, I'm packaging some syntax files for vim to let it do nice indentation/highlighting of the Pyrex language. I have two points where I'm uncertain of what is the best thing to do:
1) I had to edit the installed file: /usr/share/vim/vim62/filetype.vim to add the association of Pyrex filetype to extension. Anyone know of a safe, portable (across vim versions) way of doing this in the postinstall/preun scripts?
Right now I'm using: sed '<PATTERN>' < /usr/share/vim/vim62/filetype.vim but this means I can only upgrade a vim62 series package...
2) Does anyone have suggestions for the appropriate name for such a beast? The upstream tar file is pyrex_vim.tar.gz, but someone suggested vim-pyrex might be a better name. Anyone else have an opinion?
Thanks, -Toshio
Am So, den 11.01.2004 schrieb Toshio um 14:48:
Hi,
Hi!
I'm packaging some syntax files for vim to let it do nice indentation/highlighting of the Pyrex language.
Nice idea, this should be done for more of the useful things at www.vim.org.
I have two points where I'm uncertain of what is the best thing to do:
- I had to edit the installed file:
/usr/share/vim/vim62/filetype.vim to add the association of Pyrex filetype to extension. Anyone know of a safe, portable (across vim versions) way of doing this in the postinstall/preun scripts?
Right now I'm using: sed '<PATTERN>' < /usr/share/vim/vim62/filetype.vim but this means I can only upgrade a vim62 series package...
The question is: What versions of vim do you want to support? Why do you want to support version < 6.2 if fedora has no such version?
- Does anyone have suggestions for the appropriate name for such
a beast? The upstream tar file is pyrex_vim.tar.gz, but someone suggested vim-pyrex might be a better name. Anyone else have an opinion?
I think the type of "vim-extension" should be in the name like vim-syntax-pyrex.x.y.z.noarch.rpm.
Thanks, -Toshio
regards
André
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Andr� Kelpe wrote:
Am So, den 11.01.2004 schrieb Toshio um 14:48:
Hi,
Hi!
I'm packaging some syntax files for vim to let it do nice indentation/highlighting of the Pyrex language.
Nice idea, this should be done for more of the useful things at www.vim.org.
I have two points where I'm uncertain of what is the best thing to do:
- I had to edit the installed file:
/usr/share/vim/vim62/filetype.vim to add the association of Pyrex filetype to extension. Anyone know of a safe, portable (across vim versions) way of doing this in the postinstall/preun scripts?
Right now I'm using: sed '<PATTERN>' < /usr/share/vim/vim62/filetype.vim but this means I can only upgrade a vim62 series package...
The question is: What versions of vim do you want to support? Why do you want to support version < 6.2 if fedora has no such version?
I can see how yum refuses to update next time that vim is updated to 6.3 and this vim-pyrex thing is not updated yet...
Right now in rawhide the netsnmp package relies on rpm-4.2. With the new rpm-4.3, now yum update is broken.
behdad
André
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 09:37, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Andr Kelpe wrote:
Am So, den 11.01.2004 schrieb Toshio um 14:48:
Right now I'm using: sed '<PATTERN>' < /usr/share/vim/vim62/filetype.vim but this means I can only upgrade a vim62 series package...
The question is: What versions of vim do you want to support? Why do you want to support version < 6.2 if fedora has no such version?
I can see how yum refuses to update next time that vim is updated to 6.3 and this vim-pyrex thing is not updated yet...
Yep. Just what does yum do when this happens? When I used Ximian's rug if I asked to upgrade vim-6.3, it would give me a list of upgrades and a list of removals (for packages it couldn't find a compatible version for) and prompt me to confirm. If yum is similar, then I could see doing something like vim62-extras-pyrexsyntax package that will work with vim-6.2. And vim63-extras-pyrexsyntax that works with vim-6.3.
[Now I wish I'd paid more atttention when people were talking about kernel-module packaging :-)]
This leads into another question: Is a vimXX-extras metapackage appropriate? If so, should it have subpackages that break out different vim-extras, consist of different individual packages, or be one large meta-package?
-Toshio