I have a ruby script that I use, but don't let me stop you. -AT On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Tobias Kieslich <tobias@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Allan, > > the ruby in testing as of 3 days ago. That would be 1.8 I think. > we can build gvim(the only one with ruby enabled) without ruby > support for the time being. I don't think that many people actually > script vim with ruby and there aren't all that many ruby-vim scripts out > there. Now I can be wrong, but I think it's only fair to NOT let gvim > stall the ruby packages. Once we have ruby 1.9* support in vim we enable > it again. No big deal. > > As for the OP: vim is a symlink to vim-normal because upon installation > of gvim it becomes a symlink to vim-full (more powerful, better script > support, etc ... all the bells and whistles) where gvim will be a > symlink to the same binary it just automatically invokes it with GUI > support. That's just how vim works. > > -T > On Sat, 09 May 2009, Allan McRae wrote: > >> Kessia 'even' Pinheiro wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> Tobias, i`m without a machine, so, i can`t check the vim version. Did you >>> compile new vim with witch version of ruby? >>> >> >> It will be with ruby-1.8 because 1.9 is not in the repos yet... I am >> waiting for the vi(m)'s to move out of [testing] before I do the ruby >> update. >> >> Allan >> >> >
