On 05/14/10 at 09:34pm, Jan Steffens wrote: > 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 The vim runtime that can be retrieved via rsync is outdated.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 > > You can just send me the updated PKGBUILD. Been meaning to start working on a transitional package anyway, but been crazy busy with work the last two weeks. --
