ANN: New stable release
dougkearns at gmail.com
Fri Sep 16 08:43:26 EDT 2005
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 11:59:32AM +0100, Hugh Sasse wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Doug Kearns wrote:
> I don't think there's an official definition for these extensions,
> but I use .erb for _any_ other filetype, when .rhtml is not
> appropriate. I don't know what others do. (Ruby is very Unixy (for
> want of a word!) and people don't discuss extension names that much
Right, well this is going to be 'interesting' to implement. I guess we'd
need to run scripts.vim to determine the main filetype...
> I'll see if I can find a more concise example. There's lots of junk
> in it, but it was the first that I was playing with. Will you still
> need this if the ".erb implies html" assumption is false?
No, thanks. A simple XML file with .erb extension is exhibiting this
behaviour. I may just be misunderstanding the way filetype detection
> I only have one a/c on the machine just now, but I'd like others to
> get the benefit. Similary on Unix. I usually put the vim stuff to
> be system wide so everyone benefits, and if I have to help them I
> can spin up vim and have it work sensibly. [cf the PragProg advice
> about use one edior and learn it well: you don't want it to change
> too much just because you're logged in as someone else (who never
> uses that editor, anyway).]
Right. Obviously the installer allows you to install it anywhere you
like but, I would think, the scenario you describe is best served by an
install in $VIM/vimfiles.
> > multiple versions of Vim and trying to restrict the use of the vim-ruby
> I was running 62 and 63 at the same time for a while, but I thought
> it would install in the latest.
If you install in $VIM/vimfiles then these files will be available,
system-wide, to all versions. However, the ftdetect mechanism was
introduced in 6.3 so earlier versions will require a filetype.vim to be
constructed as per :help new-filetype. So even if you didn't manually
add a new filetype.vim, 6.2 would still have access to all the updated
vim-ruby files. The only difference would be that eRuby files weren't
I can't really see a down side to this setup. Perhaps this is where we
should start rambling about POLS? ;-)
> > files to a single version, perhaps? If you keep it in $VIMRUNTIME the
> > next time you update Vim you'll overwrite the vim-ruby files. While the
> Which is fair enough. I know we've had problems with keeping in
> sync with the vim distro before, so I usually install again after
> updating vim. Not that I've updated vim that often, only been using
> it since about 5.7.
You are but a young pup. ;-)
> > Vim release might have the latest files it's certainly not going to have
> > newer versions than this project. ;-)
> >> * * *
> >> Now, earlier today I installed the gem on a sun system. It told me
> >> to run the installer afterwards, but didn't remind me where it was
> >> hidden. Is that relatively easy to fix? When I get a moment I'll
> >> poke around with gem environment....
> > I'm assuming that people running rubygems will have $GEM_HOME/bin in
> > their PATH. Have you just blown that assumption out of the water? ;-)
> Ah. Maybe I've not configured my settings correctly:
> GEM_HOME: Undefined variable.
Nope - sky high! ;-)
It seems that GEM_HOME is only required for a 'user' install. Though the
core assumption is still correct.
> > When you say "remind me" are you referring to the INSTALL instructions?
> gem query -l -n vim =>
> *** LOCAL GEMS ***
> vim-ruby (2005.09.15, 2005.07.27)
> Ruby configuration files for Vim. Run 'vim-ruby-install.rb' to
> complete installation.
> So it has detected the need for this?
This is all Gavin's work and I assume that he knew what he was doing as
he's a rubygems developer. ;-)
I just performed a default system-wide install of rubygems and it
appears to install the executable scripts in /usr/bin - the same place
'gem' is located. So there shouldn't be any need to specify a location
for the installer script.
If it's not in your PATH maybe your installation is, in some way,
> > PS. We haven't had the usual flood of post-release discussion so I'm
> > hoping all is, generally, running smoothly...
> Or those in .ac.?? and .edu are going nuts in preparation for the
> start of the academic year and have not had chance to tackle this.
I'll await their return to these matters then. ;-)
More information about the vim-ruby-devel