Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] mingw-get: [RFC]: package group hierarchy

[Earnie Boyd <earnie@us...>]

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Keith Marshall wrote:
>> On 16/08/13 21:17, Keith Marshall wrote:
>>> You will note that [the latest mingw-get release] now makes the
>>> package group hierarchy significant, so we do need to give it some
>>> attention. A particular anomaly of note: the "MinGW Source-Level
>>> Debugger" category, (which maybe should be called more simply "MinGW
>>> Debugger"), has no packages affiliated; it should include, at the
>>> very least, the GDB packages.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there may be other anomalies, so please give this some thought.
>>
>> Ping.
>>
>> BTW, I notice that you, Earnie, have introduced some new package group
>> categories.  That's absolutely fine, but I also notice that you've
>> published a new GDB release, yet still no affiliation to the existing
>> debugger group.
>
> Do we really need a stand alone group for the debugger?  I've been
> meaning to ask that question.
>

I added the affiliate group to gdb but I still question the need.

Also, I'm thinking we still need to move the affiliate grouping to the
component for visual effect and have an attribute named group for the
component.

<component class="bin" group="MinGW Base System" group="MinGW Compiler Suite">
<component class="dev" group="MinGW Base System" group="MinGW Standard
Libraries">

>>
>> Finally, please consider enabling modelines in your vim configuration,
>> so we keep consistent formatting within the catalogues; you may then need to
>>
>>   :set ts=8
>>   :retab 2
>>
>> to restore the layout for those you've modified without modelines set.
>
> Huh?  I thought all the files had a vim modelines in the catalogue
> files.  Is there something special I need to do?  Hmm... set modeline
> is sensitive to where it is falls in the order of options in the
> .vimrc file.  Put it in the wrong place and another set command will
> destroy the set modeline option.

I retabbed gdb and mingw32-package-list; the others can wait on another update.

-- 
Earnie
-- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd

[MinGW-dvlpr] mingw-get: [RFC]: package group hierarchy

[Keith Marshall <keithmarshall@us...>]

Guys,

I'm currently working towards a new mingw-get release.  This will be
based on my last announced snapshot, and will be the first to provide a
working GUI implementation.

If you haven't looked at the last snapshot, please do so.  You will note
that this now makes the package group hierarchy significant, so we do
need to give it some attention.  A particular anomaly of note: the
"MinGW Source-Level Debugger" category, (which maybe should be called
more simply "MinGW Debugger"), has no packages affiliated; it should
include, at the very least, the GDB packages.

I'm sure there may be other anomalies, so please give this some thought.

-- 
Regards,
Keith.

Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] mingw-get: [RFC]: package group hierarchy

[Keith Marshall <keithmarshall@us...>]

On 16/08/13 21:17, Keith Marshall wrote:
> You will note that [the latest mingw-get release] now makes the 
> package group hierarchy significant, so we do need to give it some
> attention. A particular anomaly of note: the "MinGW Source-Level
> Debugger" category, (which maybe should be called more simply "MinGW
> Debugger"), has no packages affiliated; it should include, at the
> very least, the GDB packages.
> 
> I'm sure there may be other anomalies, so please give this some thought.

Ping.

BTW, I notice that you, Earnie, have introduced some new package group
categories.  That's absolutely fine, but I also notice that you've
published a new GDB release, yet still no affiliation to the existing
debugger group.

Finally, please consider enabling modelines in your vim configuration,
so we keep consistent formatting within the catalogues; you may then need to

  :set ts=8
  :retab 2

to restore the layout for those you've modified without modelines set.

-- 
Regards,
Keith.

Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] mingw-get: [RFC]: package group hierarchy

[Earnie Boyd <earnie@us...>]

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 16/08/13 21:17, Keith Marshall wrote:
>> You will note that [the latest mingw-get release] now makes the
>> package group hierarchy significant, so we do need to give it some
>> attention. A particular anomaly of note: the "MinGW Source-Level
>> Debugger" category, (which maybe should be called more simply "MinGW
>> Debugger"), has no packages affiliated; it should include, at the
>> very least, the GDB packages.
>>
>> I'm sure there may be other anomalies, so please give this some thought.
>
> Ping.
>
> BTW, I notice that you, Earnie, have introduced some new package group
> categories.  That's absolutely fine, but I also notice that you've
> published a new GDB release, yet still no affiliation to the existing
> debugger group.

Do we really need a stand alone group for the debugger?  I've been
meaning to ask that question.

>
> Finally, please consider enabling modelines in your vim configuration,
> so we keep consistent formatting within the catalogues; you may then need to
>
>   :set ts=8
>   :retab 2
>
> to restore the layout for those you've modified without modelines set.

Huh?  I thought all the files had a vim modelines in the catalogue
files.  Is there something special I need to do?  Hmm... set modeline
is sensitive to where it is falls in the order of options in the
.vimrc file.  Put it in the wrong place and another set command will
destroy the set modeline option.

-- 
Earnie
-- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd

Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] mingw-get: [RFC]: package group hierarchy

[Keith Marshall <keithmarshall@us...>]

On 15/09/13 23:08, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Keith Marshall wrote:
>> BTW, I notice that you, Earnie, have introduced some new package
>> group categories.  That's absolutely fine, but I also notice that
>> you've published a new GDB release, yet still no affiliation to the
>> existing debugger group.
> 
> Do we really need a stand alone group for the debugger?  I've been 
> meaning to ask that question.

I think so, yes.  That's a particular category of package which users
are likely to search for; having a group for it facilitates the search.

>> Finally, please consider enabling modelines in your vim
>> configuration, ...
> 
> Huh?  I thought all the files had a vim modelines in the catalogue 
> files.

They do, but vim's "set modeline" option needs to be on, when the files
are opened, for those modelines to have any effect.

> Is there something special I need to do?  Hmm... set modeline is 
> sensitive to where it is falls in the order of options in the .vimrc 
> file.

Vim's default is modeline on, except for root.  Annoyingly, Debian and
its derivatives turn it off for everyone; I don't know if that Debian
policy also propagated to MSYS.  To ensure it is on, you may need to add
a "set modeline" command in .vimrc, but ...

> Put it in the wrong place and another set command will destroy the
> set modeline option.

You need to be careful that you put it somewhere it won't get turned off
again, by something sourced afterwards.

-- 
Regards,
Keith.

Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] mingw-get: [RFC]: package group hierarchy

[Earnie Boyd <earnie@us...>]

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Keith Marshall wrote:
>> On 16/08/13 21:17, Keith Marshall wrote:
>>> You will note that [the latest mingw-get release] now makes the
>>> package group hierarchy significant, so we do need to give it some
>>> attention. A particular anomaly of note: the "MinGW Source-Level
>>> Debugger" category, (which maybe should be called more simply "MinGW
>>> Debugger"), has no packages affiliated; it should include, at the
>>> very least, the GDB packages.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there may be other anomalies, so please give this some thought.
>>
>> Ping.
>>
>> BTW, I notice that you, Earnie, have introduced some new package group
>> categories.  That's absolutely fine, but I also notice that you've
>> published a new GDB release, yet still no affiliation to the existing
>> debugger group.
>
> Do we really need a stand alone group for the debugger?  I've been
> meaning to ask that question.
>

I added the affiliate group to gdb but I still question the need.

Also, I'm thinking we still need to move the affiliate grouping to the
component for visual effect and have an attribute named group for the
component.

<component class="bin" group="MinGW Base System" group="MinGW Compiler Suite">
<component class="dev" group="MinGW Base System" group="MinGW Standard
Libraries">

>>
>> Finally, please consider enabling modelines in your vim configuration,
>> so we keep consistent formatting within the catalogues; you may then need to
>>
>>   :set ts=8
>>   :retab 2
>>
>> to restore the layout for those you've modified without modelines set.
>
> Huh?  I thought all the files had a vim modelines in the catalogue
> files.  Is there something special I need to do?  Hmm... set modeline
> is sensitive to where it is falls in the order of options in the
> .vimrc file.  Put it in the wrong place and another set command will
> destroy the set modeline option.

I retabbed gdb and mingw32-package-list; the others can wait on another update.

-- 
Earnie
-- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd

Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] mingw-get: [RFC]: package group hierarchy

[Keith Marshall <keithmarshall@us...>]

On 15/09/13 23:32, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> I added the affiliate group to gdb but I still question the need.

Thanks.  I've explained, in an earlier reply, why I think we should have
it.  I'm amenable to being convinced otherwise, but I'll need more than
just "because there's not much in it".  Eventually, I'd like to see GDB
augmented by Insight again, (and perhaps that will be more feasible with
the availability of your tcl/tk package); a debuggers group is a natural
place to offer the two together, with good visibility for users.

> Also, I'm thinking we still need to move the affiliate grouping to the
> component for visual effect and have an attribute named group for the
> component.

There may be some mileage in that, but it would need changes within
mingw-get to achieve it.  If it is done, it definitely will *not* be
done like this

> <component class="bin" group="MinGW Base System" group="MinGW Compiler Suite">
> <component class="dev" group="MinGW Base System" group="MinGW Standard
> Libraries">

because that is semantically invalid XML.

> I retabbed gdb and mingw32-package-list;

Thanks.

> the others can wait on another update.

Agreed.

-- 
Regards,
Keith.