| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
donald_j_axel
n00b
Joined: 07 Dec 2003
Posts: 23
Location: Vejby, Denmark
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:16 pm Post subject: Gvim does not need Gentoo patches |
 |
|
Gvim does not need Gentoo patches -- so why do Gentoo developers add patches?
Gentoo - gvim-6.4 ended up with an ugly font-system, no fixed(sony) font available.
Flame!
But the thing I really do not understand is why developers keep adding code when
the package is ok - they should make an alternate package instead, if they want to
fulfill some wish for a special Gentoo-feature.
Well, anyway I love Gentoo. So I built gvim myself and installed with checkinstall
which builds an RPM-file.
Feature request: Wouldn't it be nice if Gentoo-Ebuild could do like checkinstall:
"make install" or whatever command is needed, watch it with a file-watch-shell and
then add the needed database entries, md5 sums and so on and leave a finished
tbz2 package in the archive.
By the way: Why can't Gentoo switch to RPMs? Is it a naughty question?
RPM source archives run scripts like gentoo. There is no problem keeping track
of dependencies, which can be listed and installed (not by rpm-build itself, though).
The epm command shows how fast RPM is compared to Gentoo's build system.
_________________
-- dax: http://www.d-axel.dk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
donald_j_axel
n00b
Joined: 07 Dec 2003
Posts: 23
Location: Vejby, Denmark
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:59 pm Post subject: Why patch Glibc? |
|
|
The same annoying situation occurs with many other Gentoo packages.
Approximately a year ago I noticed that glibc builds perfectly without patches
and as a bonus worked well with checinstall/installwatch, which at that time
could not follow the install process. Maybe that is a consequence of securing
the glibc, but normally a private workstation will not benefit much from a
as I do not need other languages than English I tried to build it without
I know - there are reasons for most of the patches.
However, when you patch something hastily you may introduce errors. Better
then only apply patches for errors which need to be corrected.
Otherwise we get a less stable Gentoo.
I wonder if I could make something like a new Portage Tree,
"Gentoo from scratch" or a branch-off of the Gentoo-dependency tree
with as many packages as possible without patches.
Regards/Donald
_________________
-- dax: http://www.d-axel.dk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ticho
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 138
Location: yes
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Try bringing this up on gentoo-dev mailinglist, you'll get more attention there.
As for patches broking packages, bugs should be filed for those immediately in the Bugzilla.
_________________
The more you depend on forces outside yourself, the more you are dominated by them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moved from Other Things Gentoo
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fran
Guru
Joined: 29 Feb 2004
Posts: 530
Location: Coruña (Spain)
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Another example is gtk+ and smoothscroll. There are a lot of people that don't like/want smoothscroll, but the patch is always applied, without the posibility (USE flag, for example) of disabling it. I had to add the gtk+ ebuild to my overlay to disable it. There is a bug filed in the bugzilla since august (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103452) but the devs don't seem to care much about it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donald_j_axel
n00b
Joined: 07 Dec 2003
Posts: 23
Location: Vejby, Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks to Tux'helper for feedback, and thanks to Fran for feed back.
Moving this post from "other things Gentoo" to "Chat" seems to expresses
the developer attitude "this is not an important issue".
However adding patches with bugs is a kind of insult.
Reporting bugs for buggy patches is ridiculous waste of time.
Oh yes, I love Gentoo-Linux/GNU for being in front, allowing us to have
the latest versions of software we care for, e.g. Lilypond Music Typesetting.
But adding any patch to GVIM is kind of heresy as I see it. Gvim is one of
the really stable packages.
I would like to have an alternate set of ebuild files without patches other
than maintainer-patches. One of the key issues is the glibc patches. I do not
feel safe using a patched glibc. I trust the Glibc developers more than any
distributor. I know there have been bugs in glibc, of course!
Another way to see this is: Gentoo developers do a great job, and a couple
of glitches and a little heresy does not change that, but their contribution to
the Linux-Wave would be much more distinguished if the developers did
not add unnecessary patches.
I know this message on a forgotten chat list will not attract many readers,
but I hope there will be some responses anyway. Thank you!
/Donald
_________________
-- dax: http://www.d-axel.dk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
allucid
Veteran
Joined: 02 Nov 2002
Posts: 1314
Location: atlanta
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| donald_j_axel wrote: | Moving this post from "other things Gentoo" to "Chat" seems to expresses
the developer attitude "this is not an important issue". |
pjp is not a dev, he's a moderator. It don't see why it matters so much what forum this is in anyways.
| donald_j_axel wrote: | | <patch rant> |
AFAIK, gentoo has a minimal-patch policy (compared to other distros). They don't patch things unless necessary (e.g. fixes or security reasons) or if they feel that it would be of use to the majority of users. This is up to the individual maintainers to decide what goes or not.
That being said, I don't see any complelling arguments from you:
| donald_j_axel wrote: | | gvim-6.4 ended up with an ugly font-system, no fixed(sony) font available. |
It's hard to understand what this means. You can use fixed-width fonts with gvim and any font you have installed should be useable.
| Fran wrote: | | Another example is gtk+ and smoothscroll. |
Not much you can do about this. It appears you're in the minority.
| donald_j_axel wrote: | | I do not feel safe using a patched glibc. I trust the Glibc developers more than any distributor. |
Feel safe? Maybe you should use a different distro. You seem to like RPMs, why not use a binary distro?
Overall, all you really said is "I don't like patches". You didn't form a very good argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlackEdder
Advocate
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 2588
Location: Dutch enclave in Egham, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| donald_j_axel wrote: | Moving this post from "other things Gentoo" to "Chat" seems to expresses
the developer attitude "this is not an important issue". |
Other things gentoo is for support questions. You do not ask for support, so it doesn't belong there. It has nothing to do with how important something is.
Seeing how developers don't frequent these forums I suggest you try a more direct means of contacting them. For example the dev mailinglist, but unless you give more structured reasons I don't think that will amount to much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blue.sca
l33t
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Posts: 680
Location: Mainz, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can understand your dislike. I don't have any problems with those patches though, but I am kind of curious what the intention is. What ist the goal of the most patches (smoothscroll I can easily think of, but why patch the glibc?), also, does there exist some kind of documentation, what patches have been applied, what they do and where to find them. Also, it shouldn't be too hard to make an option into portage to have those patches optional.
This is absolutly no rant, Gentoo and the developers are doing a fine job, it is just curiousity.
_________________
geek by nature, linux by choice
i want my avatar back... thank you
:wq |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
playfool
l33t
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 688
Location: Ã
rhus, Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| it could just be me.. but ciaranm who maintains vim under Gentoo is a vim developer right - under normal circumstances I would say that makes him qualified to added patches, maybe you should file some bugs instead of just complaining to the void. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikegpitt
Advocate
Joined: 22 May 2004
Posts: 3224
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gentoo patches are part of gentoo. If you use Fedora or some other distro you will be stuck with their patches instead. It would be interesting to have a USE flag to exclude patches from being used, but it probably would cause more problems then help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1118
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If you don't like packages having Gentoo patches applied, create an overlay in portage and strip the patches from the ebuilds you want without them. Gentoo's developers decided that certain applications require patches for various reasons, you should trust their knowledge since package maintaners are generally intimate with the packages they maintain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fran
Guru
Joined: 29 Feb 2004
Posts: 530
Location: Coruña (Spain)
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| allucid wrote: | | Fran wrote: | | Another example is gtk+ and smoothscroll. |
Not much you can do about this. It appears you're in the minority. |
I'm not against applying smoothscroll by default if most people want it, but why not using a local use flag if there are people who don't like it? It would be a very simple solution. And there ARE people how don't want it. The patch has been around since 2.4, I think, and has never been applied upstream. That must mean something.
Take a look at this: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103811
| Quote: |
------- Additional Comment #16 From Owen Taylor 2005-03-05 19:24 UTC -------
The Gentoo people really need a big LART. Not only was this patch
not considered ready to go into GTK+, it changes the GTK+ public
API...
------- Additional Comment #17 From Ernst Persson 2005-03-05 20:18 UTC -------
<foser> ernstp: i'm not happy you added my patch without my consent.. i made it
buildable, i still consider it halfbroken
<foser> it is open.. but i'm not pushing it for inclusion as long as i'm not
content with it, thats the difference tberman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1118
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Like I said, if you don't like a patch, create an overlay. If you really want to push it as a USE flag on the offical tree then submit a bug with the suggestion of doing so, better yet, modify the ebuild and attach it to the bug and form a compelling arguement as to why you should think a seperate USE flag should be created for the ebuild. Sitting on this forum gripping about it achives nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fran
Guru
Joined: 29 Feb 2004
Posts: 530
Location: Coruña (Spain)
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AidanJT wrote: | | Like I said, if you don't like a patch, create an overlay. |
That's what I've done. Still, it's quite bothersome to do so for every new gtk that appears in portage.
| AidanJT wrote: | | If you really want to push it as a USE flag on the offical tree then submit a bug with the suggestion of doing so |
As I said before, there is already one since 5 months ago, but the devs don't answer, or at least leave it as WONTFIX: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103452
| AidanJT wrote: | | Sitting on this forum gripping about it achives nothing. |
There is already a bug filed. I've already put my ebuild in the overlay. What else should I do? Propose a patch? It's just replacing "epatch ..." by "use smoothscroll && epatch ..." and adding smoothscroll to IUSE, I don't think the developers need a patch for THAT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| donald_j_axel wrote: | Moving this post from "other things Gentoo" to "Chat" seems to expresses
the developer attitude "this is not an important issue". |
This is not a direct support thread. Rahter, it is a topic for discussion. Since it is a Gentoo related subject, it belongs in Gentoo Chat.
I am not a developer, nor am I offering any "official response" on the subject (it is not within my knowledge to offer anything other than opinion -- which, without knowing more, I'd agree with you).
But thanks for asking.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:41 pm Post subject: Re: Gvim does not need Gentoo patches |
|
|
| donald_j_axel wrote: | | Gvim does not need Gentoo patches -- so why do Gentoo developers add patches? |
Yes it does. Otherwise you'd be left with a gvim that doesn't build, and that can't use some of the other-program integration tools because the names and locations aren't what you'd expect.
| Quote: | Gentoo - gvim-6.4 ended up with an ugly font-system, no fixed(sony) font available.
Flame! |
That has absolutely nothing to do with any patch we added. We don't touch anything gvim font-related.
| Quote: | But adding any patch to GVIM is kind of heresy as I see it. Gvim is one of
the really stable packages. |
It's stable *because* we're patching the odd issue here and there. None of the gvim patches are of the evil kind. They're compile fixes, bug fixes and the occasional non-intrusive backport of vim7 code.
So let us now go through the gvim patches, and see what they all do:
003_all_vim-5.6a-paths.patch: Make sure gvim uses the Gentoo-installed perl. No functionality change.
010_all_vim-6.3-vixie.patch: Syntax highlighting for cron files: support for vixie-cron @blah syntax.
011_all_vim-6.3-xorg-75816.patch: Syntax highlighting for X config files: support for new stuff added in xorg
012_all_vim-7.0-apache-76713.patch: Correctly detect Apache configuration files in /etc/apache2/conf/
013_all_vim-7.0-cron-vars-79981.patch: Syntax highlighting for cron files: support variable assignments properly.
014_all_vim-6.3-dns-syntax.patch: Syntax highlighting for DNS files: support ipv6, new DNS keywords.
023_all_vim-6.3-apache-83565.patch: Correctly detect Apache configuration files in vhost locations.
024_all_vim-6.3-bash-83565.patch: Correctly detect bash-completion files as bash files.
027_all_vim-7.0-automake-substitutions-93378.patch: Correctly display automake substitution variables.
029_all_vim-7.0-more-sh-keywords-93983.patch: Update the sh syntax highlighting to know about various keywords.
001_all_vim-4.2-speed_t.patch: Compile fix for systems where speed_t isn't int.
002_all_vim-5.1-vimnotvi.patch: The only arguably controversial one (which I'm not applying to vim7): Don't switch to "emulate vi bugs" mode unless the user explicitly asks for it.
004_all_vim-6.0-fixkeys.patch: Fix vt100 keys when USE=minimal and using internal terminal definitions.
006_all_vim-6.0r-crv.patch: Fix <shift-CR> when USE=minimal and using internal terminal definitions.
007_all_vim-6.0-gcc31.patch: Compile fix.
015_all_vim-6.3-screen.linux-is-dark-83416.patch: Backport from vim7: correctly identify TERM=screen.linux
030_all_vim-6.3-grub-splash-96155.patch: Correct syntax highlighting for newer grub.conf keywords
031_all_vim-7.0-grand-unified-fstab-85758-81289-92263-108732.patch: Correct syntax highlighting for a bunch of newer filesystem types in fstab
And, for completeness, the stuff we do via sed:
# Fixup a script to use awk instead of nawk: Our awk is awk, not nawk.
# Patch to build with ruby-1.8.0_pre5 and following: Compile fix.
# Read vimrc and gvimrc from /etc/vim: Standard filesystem layout on Gentoo is to use subdirectories in /etc when an application has multiple configuration files.
# Use exuberant ctags which installs as /usr/bin/exuberant-ctags: Avoid using emacs ctags, which Vim doesn't support.
# Don't be fooled by /usr/include/libc.h.: Compile fix.
# gcc on sparc32 has this, uhm, interesting problem: Compile fix.
# Try to avoid sandbox problems.: Compile fix for vim7.
None of those break your fonts. None of those go anywhere near anything related to fonts. None of those alter Vim's behaviour. Believe it or not, the vim herd know a lot more about vim than you do. I suggest you just sit back, relax, stop throwing out weird conspiracy theories and avoid making yourself look like a fool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pi-rho
n00b
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 25
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:09 pm Post subject: Re: Gvim does not need Gentoo patches |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | None of those break your fonts. None of those go anywhere near anything related to fonts. None of those alter Vim's behaviour. Believe it or not, the vim herd know a lot more about vim than you do. I suggest you just sit back, relax, stop throwing out weird conspiracy theories and avoid making yourself look like a fool. |
The font weirdness was probably from vim removing support of kde. The format of &guifont changed recently. Gvim just defaulted to a font that it could find instead of the now-incorrect guifont setting in your gvimrc. OP should read vim-dev and vim-help.
_________________
---
pi-rho |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: Gvim does not need Gentoo patches |
|
|
| pi-rho wrote: | | The font weirdness was probably from vim removing support of kde. |
Nnnnope. We're talking 6.4 here, not 7a.
| Quote: | | The format of &guifont changed recently. Gvim just defaulted to a font that it could find instead of the now-incorrect guifont setting in your gvimrc. OP should read vim-dev and vim-help. |
Nnnnope. Vim offloads the guifont string to the GUI toolkit.
It's probably a USE flag issue. However, since the OW removed the USE line from his emerge --info output in the bug, it's hard to be sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
omp
Retired Dev
Joined: 10 Sep 2005
Posts: 1018
Location: Glendale, California
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:42 pm Post subject: Re: Gvim does not need Gentoo patches |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | It's probably a USE flag issue. However, since the OW removed the USE line from his emerge --info output in the bug, it's hard to be sure. |
OW = Original Whiner ?
_________________
meow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donald_j_axel
n00b
Joined: 07 Dec 2003
Posts: 23
Location: Vejby, Denmark
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: Gvim does not need Gentoo patches |
|
|
Thank you for this thorough answer. I am sorry that I did not
notice the answer before now (Dec-27).
> donald_j_axel wrote:
>> Gvim does not need Gentoo patches -- so why do Gentoo developers add patches?
ciaranm wrote:
> Yes it does. Otherwise you'd be left with a gvim that doesn't
> build, and that can't use some of the other-program integration
> tools because the names and locations aren't what you'd expect.
I am afraid that I have experienced the exact opposite:-) see below.
>> Gentoo - gvim-6.4 ended up with an ugly font-system, no
>> fixed(sony) font available. Flame!
> That has absolutely nothing to do with any patch we added. We
> don't touch anything gvim font-related.
True, I have dived into that, and I can see that no patches
touches the font system. I really don't know what is happening,
but I can recreate it now (see below:-)
[ ...cut...]
> None of those break your fonts. None of those go anywhere near
> anything related to fonts. None of those alter Vim's behaviour.
> Believe it or not, the vim herd know a lot more about vim than
> you do. I suggest you just sit back, relax, stop throwing out
> weird conspiracy theories and avoid making yourself look like
> a fool.
I do not pretend to know a lot about gvim, I am sorry if you
read the posting like that.
Your answer is really impressive, thank you very much for the
effort. Actually the unpatched GVIM compiles nicely. I am using
it right now. I appreciate very much that Gentoo Dep-tree
developers do a great job making packages work together.
The Gentoo Gvim-6.4 did not offer the "Fixed(Sony)" font which
I use often. Also the other common X11 fonts did not show up,
instead there was some fonts. I prefer the "Sony" so I tried to
build gvim from the source without patches and it works nicely.
I do not mind that they are located other places as long as I can
get a list of where the files are.
Regarding the cause of this difference I did ebuild unpack and
compared and NONE of the changes indicated a font-related change.
I did not dive further into the matter at that time.
Now (Dec 27) I have tried to emerge gvim again to compare. Emerge
exits without error.
However the resulting gvim has no menu and no help files. On
"Strict - Gentoo" systems this probably wouldn't happen, on the
other hand the Gentoo ebuild system was intended to be able to
build clean packages. A manually created /usr/share/vim helps out
here.
However even if /usr/share/vim is a symlink to my /usr/local/share/vim dir,
then gvim ends up with this selection of fonts:
[...]
Courier 10 Pitch
Cursor
Dingbats
Fixed
Helvetica
IGaramond
Lucida
[...etc.]
whereas the clean gvim has these (note the spelling and capitalization):
[...]
courier (ibm)
courier 10 pitch
fangsong ti
fixed (jis)
fixed (misc)
fixed (sony)
gothic
lucidatypewriter
luxi mono
[... etc...]
Could it have something to do with the ebuild forces use of UTF-8 which
excludes a lot of nice fonts? Should it exclude them?
UTF-8 isn't without problems.
====
Details:
USE:
[ebuild R ] app-editors/gvim-6.4 USE="+acl -bash-completion -cscope -gnome +gpm +gtk +motif +nls +perl +python -ruby" 0 kB
emerge info:
Portage 2.1_pre1 (default-linux/x86/2005.1, gcc-3.3.6, glibc-2.3.5-r1, 2.4.31tun2 i686)
=================================================================
System uname: 2.4.31tun2 i686 AMD Duron(tm)
Gentoo Base System version 1.4.16
dev-lang/python: 2.3.3-r1
sys-apps/sandbox: 1.2.11
sys-devel/autoconf: 2.13, 2.59-r6
sys-devel/automake: 1.4_p6, 1.5, 1.6.3, 1.7.9-r1, 1.8.5-r3, 1.9.4
sys-devel/binutils: 2.14.90.0.8-r1
sys-devel/libtool: 1.4.3-r4, 1.5.20-r1
virtual/os-headers: 2.4.21-r1
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86 ~x86"
AUTOCLEAN="yes"
CBUILD="i686-pc-linux-gnu"
CFLAGS="-O2 -march=i686 -fomit-frame-pointer"
CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu"
CONFIG_PROTECT="/etc /usr/kde/2/share/config /usr/kde/3.4/env /usr/kde/3.4/share/config /usr/kde/3.4/shutdown /usr/kde/3.5/env /usr/kde/3.5/share/config /usr/kde/3.5/shutdown /usr/kde/3/share/config /usr/lib/X11/xkb /usr/share/config /usr/share/texmf/dvipdfm/config/ /usr/share/texmf/dvips/config/ /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/config/ /usr/share/texmf/tex/platex/config/ /usr/share/texmf/xdvi/ /var/qmail/control"
CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/gconf /etc/terminfo /etc/env.d"
CXXFLAGS="-O2 -march=i686 -fomit-frame-pointer"
DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles"
FEATURES="autoconfig distlocks sandbox sfperms strict"
GENTOO_MIRRORS="ftp://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/gentoo/ ftp://mirrors.sec.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/gentoo/ http://ftp.du.se/pub/os/gentoo http://ds.thn.htu.se/linux/gentoo"
LC_ALL=""
LINGUAS="en"
MAKEOPTS="-j1"
PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages"
PORTAGE_TMPDIR="/var/tmp"
PORTDIR="/usr/portage"
PORTDIR_OVERLAY="/usr/local/portage"
SYNC="rsync://rsync.skumleren.net/gentoo-portage"
USE="x86 3dnow 3dnowex X Xaw3d acl alsa apm arts audiofile avi berkdb bitmap-fonts bonobo bzip2 cdr crypt cups curl directfb doc eds emboss encode esd ethereal exif expat fam ffmpeg flac font-server fontconfig foomaticdb fortran freetype gd gdbm gif glut gmp gphoto2 gpm gstreamer gtk gtk2 gtkhtml guile i8x0 idn imagemagick imlib ipv6 jpeg kde lcms ldap libg++ libgda libwww mad mhash mikmod mmx mmx2 mmxext mng motif mozplaintext mp3 mpeg mplayer ncurses network nls odbc ogg oggvorbis openal opengl oss pam pcre pdflib perl png postgres python qt quicktime readline real recode rtc samba sdl slang snmp spell ssl svga tcltk tcpd tetex tiff truetype truetype-fonts type1-fonts usb v4l v4l2 vorbis xine xinerama xml xml2 xmms xv xvid xvmc zlib elibc_glibc kernel_linux linguas_en userland_GNU"
Unset: ASFLAGS, CTARGET, LANG, LDFLAGS
#
_________________
-- dax: http://www.d-axel.dk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hrm, sounds like a) you're running different gvim and vim-core versions (don't), and b) you've got different GUIs enabled when you use the ebuild and when you compile it manually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donald_j_axel
n00b
Joined: 07 Dec 2003
Posts: 23
Location: Vejby, Denmark
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ciaranm wrote:
> Hrm, sounds like a) you're running different gvim and vim-core versions (don't), and
> b) you've got different GUIs enabled when you use the ebuild and when you compile it manually.
No, if only this was the case then I would know how solve.
By the way gvim-6.4 does not require vim-core, and the gvim clean build also makes a vim for xterm-editing.
My GUI environment is strict X11+ twm.
Regards/Donald Axel
_________________
-- dax: http://www.d-axel.dk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| donald_j_axel wrote: | | By the way gvim-6.4 does not require vim-core, and the gvim clean build also makes a vim for xterm-editing. |
| Code: |
DEPEND="${DEPEND}
»···~app-editors/vim-core-${PV}
»···|| ( x11-libs/libXext virtual/x11 )
»···gtk? (
»···»···>=x11-libs/gtk+-2.6
»···»···virtual/xft
»···»···gnome? ( >=gnome-base/libgnomeui-2.6 )
»···)
»···!gtk? ( motif? ( x11-libs/openmotif )
»···»···!motif? ( || ( x11-libs/libXaw virtual/x11 ) )
»···)"
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donald_j_axel
n00b
Joined: 07 Dec 2003
Posts: 23
Location: Vejby, Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
> Donald writes:
>> By the way gvim-6.4 does not require vim-core, and the gvim clean
>> build also makes a vim for xterm-editing.
Ciaran answers:
> DEPEND="${DEPEND}
> »···~app-editors/vim-core-${PV}
> »···|| ( x11-libs/libXext virtual/x11 )
> »···gtk? (
> »···»···>=x11-libs/gtk+-2.6
> »···»···virtual/xft
> »···»···gnome? ( >=gnome-base/libgnomeui-2.6 )
> »···)
> »···!gtk? ( motif? ( x11-libs/openmotif )
> »···»···!motif? ( || ( x11-libs/libXaw virtual/x11 ) )
> »···)"
What? From where do you get that? In /usr/portage/app-editors/vim/vim-6.4.ebuild it reads:
DEPEND="${DEPEND}
!minimal? ( ~app-editors/vim-core-${PV} )"
RDEPEND="${RDEPEND}
!minimal? ( ~app-editors/vim-core-${PV} )
!app-editors/nvi"
Not that I understand that one either:-)
_________________
-- dax: http://www.d-axel.dk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
