Thread: Debian package / Bug report
Cream is a free, easy-to-use configuration of the Vim text editor
Brought to you by:
digitect
From: Christoph H. <em...@ch...> - 2003-10-26 00:31:25
|
Hi, creamies... It has taken a while but finally the first Debian package of "cream" is available. However I found two bugs that I would like to have fixed (or someone prove me wrong). Bug 1) When starting Cream I get an error message for a second: ====== Error detected while processing function Cream_print_init..Cream_print_setup: line 14: ====== After that cream starts up normally. But it delays the startup and doesn't look nice. :) Bug 2) When doing a central installation (I set the CREAM* variables and start it vom /usr/share/vim/cream) there is a problem with the spell checking. According to the cream-spell.vim the "spelldicts" directory needs to be user writeable. Making a system directory user writeable is not a good idea so perhaps changing this check to "if directory exists" instead of "is it writeable" might be better. Am I wrong? So if any Debian users here want to test the package please have a look at http://mentors.debian.net and get the 0.24 package from there. I'm eager to get your feedback and have my sponsor upload it into unstable. The package is called "vim-cream". Regards Christoph -- ~ ~ ".signature" [Modified] 3 lines --100%-- 3,41 All |
From: Steve H. <dig...@mi...> - 2003-10-26 02:53:50
|
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 20:28, Christoph Haas wrote: > > Hi, creamies... > > It has taken a while but finally the first Debian package of "cream" > is available. However I found two bugs that I would like to have > fixed (or someone prove me wrong). > > Bug 1) > When starting Cream I get an error message for a second: > ====== > Error detected while processing function Cream_print_init..Cream_print_setup: > line 14: > ====== > After that cream starts up normally. But it delays the startup and > doesn't look nice. :) Can't seem to find a problem. Please verify that the two functions Cream_print_setup() and Cream_print_init() in cream-lib.vim match those at the bottom. Also, what version of gvim? > Bug 2) > When doing a central installation (I set the CREAM* variables and > start it vom /usr/share/vim/cream) there is a problem with the spell > checking. According to the cream-spell.vim the "spelldicts" > directory needs to be user writeable. Making a system directory user > writeable is not a good idea so perhaps changing this check to "if > directory exists" instead of "is it writeable" might be better. Am I > wrong? Do you set $CREAM_USER to somewhere writable? We need some place to write user additions to the dictionaries and this var allows each user to have his own. The default subdirectory ~/.cream-user is also available if it exists. In the future there may also be some other preferences we stash here, too. > So if any Debian users here want to test the package please have a > look at http://mentors.debian.net and get the 0.24 package from > there. I'm eager to get your feedback and have my sponsor upload it > into unstable. The package is called "vim-cream". I think it's terrific that you're doing this! But I'm not sure how to find the source of your package from the link. Just curious how you enable a global installation while at the same time keep standard Vim available, too. (I hope to begin providing a "cream" startup batch/script in a release or two that preserves "g/vim" as default Vim without Cream, as detailed in http://cream.sf.net/faq.html#0202.) -- Steve Hall [ dig...@mi... ] Cream... sheep clothing for the Vim text editor! http://cream.sourceforge.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- function! Cream_print_setup(mode, feature) " set printoptions " o {feature} must be a valid &printoptions string if a:feature == "paper:letter" \|| a:feature == "paper:legal" \|| a:feature == "paper:ledger" \|| a:feature == "paper:statement" \|| a:feature == "paper:A3" \|| a:feature == "paper:A4" \|| a:feature == "paper:A5" \|| a:feature == "paper:B4" \|| a:feature == "paper:B5" let g:CREAM_PRINT_PAPERSIZE = a:feature elseif a:feature == "portrait:y" \|| a:feature == "portrait:n" let g:CREAM_PRINT_ORIENTATION = a:feature else " invalid feature has no effect endif " cat valid options + "," (Vim handles a trailing comma ok) let myoptions = "" if g:CREAM_PRINT_PAPERSIZE != "" let myoptions = myoptions . g:CREAM_PRINT_PAPERSIZE . "," endif if g:CREAM_PRINT_ORIENTATION != "" let myoptions = myoptions . g:CREAM_PRINT_ORIENTATION . "," endif execute "set printoptions=" . myoptions if a:mode == "v" normal gv endif endfunction function! Cream_print_init() " configure options from globals on startup (called via VimEnter " autocmd) " Note: must make all exist so cat of all options is valid if !exists("g:CREAM_PRINT_PAPERSIZE") let g:CREAM_PRINT_PAPERSIZE = "" endif if !exists("g:CREAM_PRINT_ORIENTATION") let g:CREAM_PRINT_ORIENTATION = "" endif " pass valid values to initialize all print options call Cream_print_setup("i", g:CREAM_PRINT_ORIENTATION) endfunction --------------------------------------------------------------------- |
From: Christoph H. <em...@ch...> - 2003-10-26 11:16:48
|
Hi, Steve et al... > On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 20:28, Christoph Haas wrote: > > Bug 1) > > When starting Cream I get an error message for a second: > > ====== > > Error detected while processing function Cream_print_init..Cream_print_setup: > > line 14: > > ====== > > After that cream starts up normally. But it delays the startup and > > doesn't look nice. :) On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 10:46:49PM -0400, Steve Hall wrote: > Can't seem to find a problem. Please verify that the two functions > Cream_print_setup() and Cream_print_init() in cream-lib.vim match > those at the bottom. Also, what version of gvim? No, the cream-lib.vim looks different. I took the 0.24 version from cream.sf.net - isn't that the official release of 0.24? Or is this a known bug which is fixed in the CVS version? You know for a Debian package a package maintainer usually takes an official release from the upstream developer(s) and makes a package of it. So I would rather not like to use the CVS to make sure both you and me know what's supposed to be in the files. So what's the source for your cream-lib.vim? I took the version from http://cream.sourceforge.net/installation.html and followed the link at section "2. Download Cream" named "cream-0-24.tar.gz". gvim is version 6.2.127. > > Bug 2) > > When doing a central installation (I set the CREAM* variables and > > start it vom /usr/share/vim/cream) there is a problem with the spell > > checking. According to the cream-spell.vim the "spelldicts" > > directory needs to be user writeable. Making a system directory user > > writeable is not a good idea so perhaps changing this check to "if > > directory exists" instead of "is it writeable" might be better. Am I > > wrong? > > Do you set $CREAM_USER to somewhere writable? We need some place to > write user additions to the dictionaries and this var allows each user > to have his own. Valid hint. No, I didn't set the variable yet. I just tried so set it to $HOME but that also didn't solve it. The exact error message is "Warning, default dictionary not found." as written in the "function! Cream_spell_dictload_default()" in the cream-spell.vim. Perhaps someone has an idea what's wrong here? > I think it's terrific that you're doing this! But I'm not sure how to > find the source of your package from the link. Thanks - as long as I can complain about potential bugs and still get support from you I'm happy enough to do it. :) The mentors.debian.net is a source/repository of Debian packages that are not yet officially in the distribution. Sponsors (the developers that upload packages on behalf of non-Debian-developers (like me)) take the package from there and upload it. That's why I pointed you to that web site. The direct link to the directory the package files can be found at is: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/vim-cream/ Debian users only need to get the ".deb" file and install it using "dpkg -i ...deb". > Just curious how you enable a global installation while at the same > time keep standard Vim available, too. (I hope to begin providing a > "cream" startup batch/script in a release or two that preserves > "g/vim" as default Vim without Cream, as detailed in > http://cream.sf.net/faq.html#0202.) I felt a little inventive and produced these lines as a startup wrapper in /usr/bin/cream. This way I can pass through all other VIM options while running the vimrc from cream first. It looks like this: #!/bin/sh # This wrapper script is part of the "vim-cream" Debian GNU/Linux # package written by Christoph Haas <em...@ch...>. VIMINIT="source /usr/share/vim/cream/.vimrc" export VIMINIT CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ export CREAM CREAM_BAK=$HOME export CREAM_BAK CREAM_SWP=$HOME export CREAM_SWP CREAM_VIEW=$HOME export CREAM_VIEW exec gvim "$@" Regards... Christoph P.S.: Sorry for the double post. The mail connection when posting was killed and my MTA sent it again. Didn't mean to annoy anyone. -- ~ ~ ".signature" [Modified] 3 lines --100%-- 3,41 All |
From: Steve H. <dig...@mi...> - 2003-10-26 22:50:31
|
From: Christoph Haas, Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:10:22 +0100 > On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 10:46:49PM -0400, Steve Hall wrote: > > On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 20:28, Christoph Haas wrote: > > > > > > When starting Cream I get an error message for a second: > > > ====== > > > Error detected while processing function > > > Cream_print_init..Cream_print_setup: line 14: > > > > Please verify that the two functions Cream_print_setup() and > > Cream_print_init() in cream-lib.vim match those at the bottom. > > No, the cream-lib.vim looks different. I took the 0.24 version from > cream.sf.net - isn't that the official release of 0.24? Or is this a > known bug which is fixed in the CVS version? Oh dear, really stupid mistake on my part. The tarball didn't reflect these changes while the .zip did. I must have tweaked it on the Windows side after making the .tar.gz package first. > You know for a Debian package a package maintainer usually takes an > official release from the upstream developer(s) and makes a package > of it. So I would rather not like to use the CVS to make sure both > you and me know what's supposed to be in the files. Yes, this is the correct way to do it, and also the easiest. I hope to release 0.25 shortly which will have this corrected in an official release. (Along with a few other minor updates.) > > > Bug 2) > > > When doing a central installation (I set the CREAM* variables > > > and start it vom /usr/share/vim/cream) there is a problem with > > > the spell checking. According to the cream-spell.vim the > > > "spelldicts" directory needs to be user writeable. Making a > > > system directory user writeable is not a good idea so perhaps > > > changing this check to "if directory exists" instead of "is it > > > writeable" might be better. Am I wrong? > > > > Do you set $CREAM_USER to somewhere writable? We need some place > > to write user additions to the dictionaries and this var allows > > each user to have his own. > > Valid hint. No, I didn't set the variable yet. I just tried so set > it to $HOME but that also didn't solve it. The exact error message > is "Warning, default dictionary not found." as written in the > "function! Cream_spell_dictload_default()" in the cream-spell.vim. > Perhaps someone has an idea what's wrong here? Cream_spell_init() is using a bad test to find the dictionary locations for a system-wide installation. Substitute if isdirectory($CREAM . "spelldicts") == 1 for the line if filewritable($CREAM . "spelldicts") == 2 at the last if statement in the function. This will allow the default spell check directory to be non-writable. But you'll still need a writable location for user directories. Note that if $CREAM_USER exists, user dictionaries will be placed into a subdirectory within, "spelldicts/". > > I think it's terrific that you're doing this! But I'm not sure how > > to find the source of your package from the link. > > Thanks - as long as I can complain about potential bugs and still > get support from you I'm happy enough to do it. :) Well, I'm not dead yet, so keep it up! > The mentors.debian.net is a source/repository of Debian packages > that are not yet officially in the distribution. Sponsors (the > developers that upload packages on behalf of non-Debian-developers > (like me)) take the package from there and upload it. That's why I > pointed you to that web site. > > The direct link to the directory the package files can be found at > is: > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/vim-cream/ > Debian users only need to get the ".deb" file and install it using > "dpkg > -i ...deb". Found the tarball, but couldn't find your wrapper below... > > Just curious how you enable a global installation while at the > > same time keep standard Vim available, too. (I hope to begin > > providing a "cream" startup batch/script in a release or two that > > preserves "g/vim" as default Vim without Cream, as detailed in > > http://cream.sf.net/faq.html#0202.) > > I felt a little inventive and produced these lines as a startup > wrapper in /usr/bin/cream. This way I can pass through all other VIM > options while running the vimrc from cream first. It looks like > this: > > #!/bin/sh > # This wrapper script is part of the "vim-cream" Debian GNU/Linux > # package written by Christoph Haas <em...@ch...>. > VIMINIT="source /usr/share/vim/cream/.vimrc" > export VIMINIT > CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ > export CREAM > CREAM_BAK=$HOME > export CREAM_BAK > CREAM_SWP=$HOME > export CREAM_SWP > CREAM_VIEW=$HOME > export CREAM_VIEW > > exec gvim "$@" Ouch, this will dump tons of backup, swap, view, and viminfo files into the user's home directory. Please create a hidden user location for the last three--GNOME (and now KDE?) use $HOME as the desktop! Default for Cream is ~/.cream-user, but any location would do, even ~/.vim. And for my own education, perhaps you can teach me a few things: o Does the "$@" argument to the last exec line mean "all arguments"? o Why "exec gvim" rather than just "gvim"? o Why not simply write: export CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ rather than: CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ export CREAM Complete novice here, go easy on me! Thanks again for all your work and input. -- Steve Hall [ dig...@mi... ] Cream... sheep clothing for the Vim text editor! http://cream.sourceforge.net |
From: Christoph H. <em...@ch...> - 2003-10-26 23:20:59
|
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 05:46:32PM -0500, Steve Hall wrote: > Oh dear, really stupid mistake on my part. The tarball didn't reflect > these changes while the .zip did. I must have tweaked it on the > Windows side after making the .tar.gz package first. That explains it. :) I will get the .tar.gz tomorrow and rebuild the package. > I hope to release 0.25 shortly which will have this corrected in an > official release. (Along with a few other minor updates.) It's nice that you already support central installations (as opposed to the ~/.cream -approach). So even the 0.24 will be no problems to be packaged. May I propose something? Usually developers use the syntax "package-1.0.tar.gz" - just like you do. However the content is a directory named "package-1.0" containing all the files. I appreciate that you changed the contents of the package (in 0.22 it contained a ".cream" directory) but this is more descriptive and you always know which version of the package is inside the unpacked directory. Just my two cents. Feel free to object or ignore it. However that would mean I could use your upstream package the way it is without mangling it. > Cream_spell_init() is using a bad test to find the dictionary > locations for a system-wide installation. Substitute > > if isdirectory($CREAM . "spelldicts") == 1 > > for the line > > if filewritable($CREAM . "spelldicts") == 2 > > at the last if statement in the function. This will allow the > default spell check directory to be non-writable. > > But you'll still need a writable location for user directories. Note > that if $CREAM_USER exists, user dictionaries will be placed into a > subdirectory within, "spelldicts/". I would think that creating a ~/.cream-user directory (if it does not exist yet) in the wrapper script may be a good idea. Then I can point all the CREAM_* variables there. That directory would be writeable. Would the users still get access to the $CREAM/spelldicts dictionaries? > > The direct link to the directory the package files can be found at > > is: > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/vim-cream/ > > Debian users only need to get the ".deb" file and install it using > > "dpkg > > -i ...deb". > Found the tarball, but couldn't find your wrapper below... The tarball is just your original .tar.gz (only renamed the main directory to make it fit better). The "diff" file contains the differences between your (upstream) tarball and my (maintainer) changes to it. This way nosy users can compare my orig file to yours and take a look at what I changed. One reason is that users can compare the two original packages and make sure I didn't implement any backdoors. This is especially important in security software like GPG. However I would even not want to have a copy of all my intimate email written in gvim be mailed to my ex. :) So the short answer is: the wrapper is contained inside the diff file (and in the final binary package ".deb" of course). > > #!/bin/sh > > # This wrapper script is part of the "vim-cream" Debian GNU/Linux > > # package written by Christoph Haas <em...@ch...>. > > VIMINIT="source /usr/share/vim/cream/.vimrc" > > export VIMINIT > > CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ > > export CREAM > > CREAM_BAK=$HOME > > export CREAM_BAK > > CREAM_SWP=$HOME > > export CREAM_SWP > > CREAM_VIEW=$HOME > > export CREAM_VIEW > > > > exec gvim "$@" > Ouch, this will dump tons of backup, swap, view, and viminfo files > into the user's home directory. Please create a hidden user location > for the last three--GNOME (and now KDE?) use $HOME as the desktop! > Default for Cream is ~/.cream-user, but any location would do, even > ~/.vim. Okay, I will make this script create ~/.cream-user. Do I still need to set the CREAM_* variables then or are they predefined to that directory? > And for my own education, perhaps you can teach me a few things: > o Does the "$@" argument to the last exec line mean "all arguments"? Yes. It's an internal shell variable. $1, $2, $3... point to the arguments you run this scripts with. And $@ is the sum of all these arguments. I want to pass-through all options a user may have passed when running "cream". > o Why "exec gvim" rather than just "gvim"? Normally the script would start the new task "gvim". As soon as gvim ends - this script will be ended, too. But as the script does nothing more than just launch the gvim it uses "exec". In technical terms: "exec" replaces this script by the command "gvim". The script is quit and gvim started. It's not really a big difference in this case. > o Why not simply write: > > export CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ > > rather than: > > CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ > export CREAM Valid question. I'm using the /bin/sh which is the original dusty classic "bourne shell". This old thingy does not know about "export a=1" - it must be done in two steps. The newer "bourne again shell" (bash) can do this in one step but for compatibility I rather use this variant. > Complete novice here, go easy on me! I hope I was mercyful enough. :) Thanks for replying so quickly. Regards Christoph -- ~ ~ ".signature" [Modified] 3 lines --100%-- 3,41 All |
From: Steve H. <dig...@mi...> - 2003-10-27 03:11:01
|
From: Christoph Haas, Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:16:02 +0100 > On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 05:46:32PM -0500, Steve Hall wrote: > > > > Oh dear, really stupid mistake on my part. The tarball didn't > > reflect these changes while the .zip did. I must have tweaked it > > on the Windows side after making the .tar.gz package first. > > That explains it. :) I will get the .tar.gz tomorrow and rebuild the > package. Might not make the release by tomorrow. Just use the functions I sent you and you should be ok if you don't want to wait. > May I propose something? Usually developers use the syntax > "package-1.0.tar.gz" - just like you do. However the content is a > directory named "package-1.0" containing all the files. I appreciate > that you changed the contents of the package (in 0.22 it contained a > ".cream" directory) but this is more descriptive and you always know > which version of the package is inside the unpacked directory. Just > my two cents. Feel free to object or ignore it. However that would > mean I could use your upstream package the way it is without > mangling it. Not sure I understand, are you meaning the package and enclosed subdirectory names should use periods in the version number rather than a dash the way the 0.24 tarball did? > > But you'll still need a writable location for user directories. > > Note that if $CREAM_USER exists, user dictionaries will be placed > > into a subdirectory within, "spelldicts/". > > I would think that creating a ~/.cream-user directory (if it does > not exist yet) in the wrapper script may be a good idea. Then I can > point all the CREAM_* variables there. That directory would be > writeable. Would the users still get access to the $CREAM/spelldicts > dictionaries? The most clean would be: mkdir /home/$USER/.cream-user/ mkdir /home/$USER/.cream-user/bak mkdir /home/$USER/.cream-user/views mkdir /home/$USER/.cream-user/spelldicts export CREAM_USER=/home/$USER/.cream-user/ export CREAM_BAK=/home/$USER/.cream-user/bak/ export CREAM_VIEW=/home/$USER/.cream-user/views/ Note that you don't really need to set CREAM_SWP as it will default to the location of CREAM_BAK anyway. > So the short answer is: the wrapper is contained inside the diff > file (and in the final binary package ".deb" of course). Ah, terrific. I didn't even bother to look at the diff, but that makes sense. > Okay, I will make this script create ~/.cream-user. Do I still need > to set the CREAM_* variables then or are they predefined to that > directory? You'll still need them so they don't default to the (system-wide) installation location. > > And for my own education, perhaps you can teach me a few things: > > o Does the "$@" argument to the last exec line mean "all arguments"? > > Yes. It's an internal shell variable. $1, $2, $3... point to the > arguments you run this scripts with. And $@ is the sum of all these > arguments. I want to pass-through all options a user may have passed > when running "cream". Looks better than the "gvim $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9" I have in the FAQ, too. :) > > o Why "exec gvim" rather than just "gvim"? > > Normally the script would start the new task "gvim". As soon as gvim > ends - this script will be ended, too. But as the script does > nothing more than just launch the gvim it uses "exec". In technical > terms: "exec" replaces this script by the command "gvim". The script > is quit and gvim started. It's not really a big difference in this > case. Gotcha. > > o Why not simply write: > > > > export CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ > > > > rather than: > > > > CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ > > export CREAM > > Valid question. I'm using the /bin/sh which is the original dusty > classic "bourne shell". This old thingy does not know about "export > a=1" - it must be done in two steps. The newer "bourne again shell" > (bash) can do this in one step but for compatibility I rather use > this variant. Is this a Debian thing or a Christoph thing? :) (Do I need to adjust my documentation or should anyone using sh know better?) > > Complete novice here, go easy on me! > > I hope I was mercyful enough. :) Thanks for replying so quickly. Very helpful, thanks much. -- Steve Hall [ dig...@mi... ] Cream... sheep clothing for the Vim text editor! http://cream.sourceforge.net |
From: Elias P. <el...@us...> - 2003-10-26 23:01:44
|
On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 02:28, Christoph Haas wrote: > So if any Debian users here want to test the package please have a look > at http://mentors.debian.net and get the 0.24 package from there. I'm > eager to get your feedback and have my sponsor upload it into unstable. > The package is called "vim-cream". > I just installed the package, and it seams to work. It's nice how the original gvim stays in vim mode, and I can run cream with 'cream'. Just must get used to typing 'cream' instead of 'gvim' now.. Oh, I just noticed a small bug: If I type cream, then hit return in the new file so it is modified, then exit - it asks me twice if it should save it (not sure if this is related to the Debian version or not). -- Elias Pschernig <el...@us...> |
From: Steve H. <dig...@mi...> - 2003-10-27 01:24:01
|
From: Elias Pschernig, Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:54:55 +0100 > > Oh, I just noticed a small bug: If I type cream, then hit return in > the new file so it is modified, then exit - it asks me twice if it > should save it (not sure if this is related to the Debian version or > not). Looks like a Cream bug, I'll put it on the ToDo. -- Steve Hall [ dig...@mi... ] Cream... sheep clothing for the Vim text editor! http://cream.sourceforge.net |
From: Christoph H. <em...@ch...> - 2003-10-27 08:21:27
|
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 10:54:55PM +0100, Elias Pschernig wrote: > I just installed the package, and it seams to work. It's nice how the > original gvim stays in vim mode, and I can run cream with 'cream'. Just > must get used to typing 'cream' instead of 'gvim' now.. I found this to be the best way. Imagining that my users kill me because they are in 'cream mode' by default gave me a headache. :) > Oh, I just noticed a small bug: If I type cream, then hit return in the > new file so it is modified, then exit - it asks me twice if it should > save it (not sure if this is related to the Debian version or not). That worked for me in a short test. Could you please extract the original archive into .cream and test that without the package? However I'm quite sure this is not a package issue. Christoph -- ~ ~ ".signature" [Modified] 3 lines --100%-- 3,41 All |
From: Christoph H. <em...@ch...> - 2003-10-27 10:07:02
|
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 10:10:54PM -0500, Steve Hall wrote: > Might not make the release by tomorrow. Just use the functions I sent > you and you should be ok if you don't want to wait. If you say the .zip file is up to date then I'd take that one and .tar.gz'ip it. > Not sure I understand, are you meaning the package and enclosed > subdirectory names should use periods in the version number rather > than a dash the way the 0.24 tarball did? I admit that my proposal was confusing. All I ask is that you change "cream-0-24" to "cream-0.24" - nothing more. :) It's not much work to change that myself. But for Debian packages this looks like: - Cream is version "0" - This is the "24"h try of me to build a package of version "0" If you name it cream-0.24 then my package is called cream-0.24-1: - Cream is version "0.24" - This is the first (1) package for this version > The most clean would be: > > mkdir /home/$USER/.cream-user/ > mkdir /home/$USER/.cream-user/bak > mkdir /home/$USER/.cream-user/views > mkdir /home/$USER/.cream-user/spelldicts > > export CREAM_USER=/home/$USER/.cream-user/ > export CREAM_BAK=/home/$USER/.cream-user/bak/ > export CREAM_VIEW=/home/$USER/.cream-user/views/ > > Note that you don't really need to set CREAM_SWP as it will default to > the location of CREAM_BAK anyway. Okay, I will change that. > > Okay, I will make this script create ~/.cream-user. Do I still need > > to set the CREAM_* variables then or are they predefined to that > > directory? > > You'll still need them so they don't default to the (system-wide) > installation location. Check. > > > o Why not simply write: > > > > > > export CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ > > > > > > rather than: > > > > > > CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ > > > export CREAM > > > > Valid question. I'm using the /bin/sh which is the original dusty > > classic "bourne shell". This old thingy does not know about "export > > a=1" - it must be done in two steps. The newer "bourne again shell" > > (bash) can do this in one step but for compatibility I rather use > > this variant. > > Is this a Debian thing or a Christoph thing? :) (Do I need to adjust > my documentation or should anyone using sh know better?) This is a general thing. :) However many operating systems just provide the "sh" (Solaris for example) if you don't explicitly install the "bash". For compatibility reasons I would suggest you change the documentation to make variable assignments a two-step-thing. Christoph -- ~ ~ ".signature" [Modified] 3 lines --100%-- 3,41 All |
From: Steve H. <dig...@mi...> - 2003-10-27 12:15:46
|
From: Christoph Haas, Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:06:47 +0100 > On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 10:10:54PM -0500, Steve Hall wrote: > > > > Might not make the release by tomorrow. Just use the functions I > > sent you and you should be ok if you don't want to wait. > > If you say the .zip file is up to date then I'd take that one and > .tar.gz'ip it. No, the icon file formats are all wrong for unix in the zip (.bmp rather than .xpm). > All I ask is that you change "cream-0-24" to "cream-0.24" - nothing > more. :) I can make that change, no problem. > > > > o Why not simply write: > > > > > > > > export CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ > > > > > > > > rather than: > > > > > > > > CREAM=/usr/share/vim/cream/ > > > > export CREAM > > > > > > Valid question. I'm using the /bin/sh which is the original > > > dusty classic "bourne shell". This old thingy does not know > > > about "export a=1" - it must be done in two steps. The newer > > > "bourne again shell" (bash) can do this in one step but for > > > compatibility I rather use this variant. > > > > Is this a Debian thing or a Christoph thing? :) (Do I need to > > adjust my documentation or should anyone using sh know better?) > > This is a general thing. :) However many operating systems just > provide the "sh" (Solaris for example) if you don't explicitly > install the "bash". For compatibility reasons I would suggest you > change the documentation to make variable assignments a > two-step-thing. Good to know, I'll correct the docs. -- Steve Hall [ dig...@mi... ] Cream... sheep clothing for the Vim text editor! http://cream.sourceforge.net |