I'll edit the PKGBUILD, then. Should I submit it as a bug again? On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Jan Steffens <jan.steffens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The vim runtime that can be retrieved via rsync is outdated. >>> >>> Some of the patches modify the runtime, and some of these changes >>> (e.g. 394) are lost when the runtime is overwritten with the runtime >>> from rsync. >>> >>> Not using the runtime from rsync at all also misses some updates. >>> >>> Any thoughts on how to solve this? One option would be to build vim >>> from Mercurial (http://vim.googlecode.com). >> >> I also agree that building from Mercurial might be our best bet here. >> The vim PKGBUILD is crazy complex as it is, and switching to Mercurial >> snapshots is probably a cleaner idea. > > And it looks like it DOES have tags, so "v7-2-325" would give us vim > 7.2 including up to patch 325. > > Simpler PKGBUILD? Check. More up to date runtime? Check. Less headache > to maintain? Check >
