Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: compiling on Mac

Expand Messages
  • Benji Fisher
    ... One more adjective for the distinction: historical. ... That should be fixed. ... I do not want to be involved in a comparison of Carbon vs. GTK. I agree
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:53:27PM +0000, Chris Allen wrote:
      > On 1/31/06, A. J. Mechelynck <antoine.mechelynck@...> wrote:
      > > - The basic archive (several .tar.gz or one .bz2) contains everything
      > > that is required for Unix (and Unix-like OSs like Linux and maybe OSX
      > > with X11).
      > > - The "lang" archive contains "multi-language" add-ons.
      > > - The "extra" archive contains add-ons for OSs other than Unix (Windows,
      > > Mac, ...).
      > I think the confusion comes from the distinction being pretty
      > artificial and, er, indistinct when it comes to Mac OS X / Unix. OS X
      > is Unix-like, in just the way that Linux is, and to essentially the
      > same degree.

      One more adjective for the distinction: historical.

      > It is also very easy to be entirely unaware of the extras source
      > package: the Macintosh link on the download page refers people to the
      > Unix source collection with no mention of any extras:
      > If you have OSX and a setup for compiling programs, you
      > can use the Unix source code archives and compile yourself.
      > If you click on the Unix link in the download page you get no mention
      > whatsoever of the extras package. If you click on the source link,
      > which is out of date and points to Vim 6.3 (which I reported to the
      > site maintainer e-mail address) then you do get a mention of the
      > extras, but with the deceptive phrasing "This contains source and
      > runtime files that are not used on Unix." Now, since OS X is as
      > Unix-like as Linux, that makes it sound safely ignorable (see next
      > paragraph).

      That should be fixed.

      > Another potential issue is that you aren't really expecting to need
      > another package -- the GTK GUI comes with the 'Unix' source files, for
      > example, which is what you'd expect, despite the fact that GTK isn't
      > really anything to do with Unix any more than Carbon is. (Both are
      > third-party APIs with no real relation to any existing standard for
      > Unix.)
      > I'm not saying the packaging system should change, but a couple of
      > well-placed notes on the download page would make this much, much
      > clearer.

      I do not want to be involved in a comparison of Carbon vs. GTK. I
      agree that some changes should me made to
      http://www.vim.org/download.php#mac .
      (Ouch! Some of what it says there is really out of date!)

      If someone else will take over managing http://macvim.org/OSX
      maybe I could help keep www.vim.org up to date ...

      HTH --Benji Fisher
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.