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

RE: Patch for nsi fileset when creating windows installer from unix distribution

Expand Messages
  • Bram Moolenaar
    ... But this breaks it for when using the PC source archive. A better solution would be to detect the runtime directory and move its contents to the right
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Michael Geddes wrote:

      > When using the full gzip source + runtime + extras, the file structure
      > is different to the normal windows zip file! The main difference is the
      > runtime directory. This patch allows the installer to work properly
      > under these conditions.

      But this breaks it for when using the PC source archive. A better
      solution would be to detect the runtime directory and move its contents
      to the right place.

      > The other patch (optionally) allows the installer to be run from
      > vim/system directory. The batch files are all very well and good, but
      > they don't do everything, and reduce the length of the command line
      > allowable, amongst other things. I prefer to have the vim exes in my
      > path. The problem is that this means that the installer is also in the
      > path, and this is definitely a bad thing!

      The automatic way uses the batch scripts. If you are going to set the
      path manually, you might as well move the [un]install.exe out of the
      way after installing.

      --
      No letters of the alphabet were harmed in the creation of this message.

      /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
      /// Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim \\\
      \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.a-a-p.org ///
      \\\ Lord Of The Rings helps Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org/lotr.html ///
    • Michael Geddes
      Or make the windows zip file consistent with the other archive by moving the docs &c into the runtime directory? Is there a reason they aren t already? Still,
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 4, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Or make the windows zip file consistent with the other archive by moving
        the docs &c into the runtime
        directory? Is there a reason they aren't already?
        Still, if somebody more familiar with the installer than I am could do
        the detecting, that would be great.

        Also, is there any reason why the installer doesn't distribute the
        command-line version of vim? It is very useful for batch processing
        (some of my scripts assume its presence too).

        Could we at least have the patches to dos_inst.c as this allows me to
        more easily make my own distribution for work where this behaviour is
        normal.
        Another option could be to choose a different name for the .exe - for
        example viminst.exe & vimunins.exe - would this be more palatable?

        //.




        -----Original Message-----
        From: Bram Moolenaar [mailto:Bram@...]
        Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2002 4:32 AM
        To: Michael Geddes
        Cc: Vim Dev (E-mail)
        Subject: RE: Patch for nsi fileset when creating windows installer from
        unix distribution



        Michael Geddes wrote:

        > When using the full gzip source + runtime + extras, the file structure
        > is different to the normal windows zip file! The main difference is
        the
        > runtime directory. This patch allows the installer to work properly
        > under these conditions.

        But this breaks it for when using the PC source archive. A better
        solution would be to detect the runtime directory and move its contents
        to the right place.


        > The other patch (optionally) allows the installer to be run from
        > vim/system directory. The batch files are all very well and good,
        but
        > they don't do everything, and reduce the length of the command line
        > allowable, amongst other things. I prefer to have the vim exes in my
        > path. The problem is that this means that the installer is also in
        the
        > path, and this is definitely a bad thing!

        The automatic way uses the batch scripts. If you are going to set the
        path manually, you might as well move the [un]install.exe out of the
        way after installing.

        --
        No letters of the alphabet were harmed in the creation of this message.

        /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net
        \\\
        /// Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim
        \\\
        \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.a-a-p.org
        ///
        \\\ Lord Of The Rings helps Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org/lotr.html
        ///
      • Michael Geddes
        Bram, in the end I am happy to go with your decision, however your arguments haven t convinced me yet... so one last go. I ve had a look at lots of directories
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 5, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Bram, in the end I am happy to go with your decision, however your
          arguments
          haven't convinced me yet... so one last go.

          I've had a look at lots of directories under Program Files on my
          computer.

          Nearly all have their uninstall.exe / unwise.exe in a sub-directory
          named Uninstall, System or Setup.
          Those that don't have a postfix.. something like setup_wm.exe (Windows
          Media Player) or unins000.exe.
          I said nearly all - there is one exception I've found so far that had an
          uninstall.exe in with the other
          executables.

          So maybe a beter name would be inst_vim.exe and un_vim.exe (or
          something like that). It is still very
          obvious... IHMHO

          I believe you are under-estimating the problems the batch files might
          cause - though I've only one reportable
          incident - which is that the .cmd file was truncating the command-line
          when I was passing a few dozen files to the command line. (So not hugely
          a problem for the most part).

          If only winnt handled symbolic links properly (like if shortcuts could
          be executed).

          I personally don't care about cr/lf conversions. Everything works event
          if it doesn't happen.

          //.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Bram Moolenaar [mailto:Bram@...]
          Sent: Friday, 6 September 2002 7:14 AM
          To: Michael Geddes
          Subject: RE: Patch for nsi fileset when creating windows installer from
          unix distribution



          Michael Geddes wrote:

          > Or make the windows zip file consistent with the other archive by
          moving
          > the docs &c into the runtime directory? Is there a reason they aren't
          > already?

          The Unix archives are setup to be able to run "make install". The
          MS-Windows archives are setup to use the files right after unpacking.

          > Still, if somebody more familiar with the installer than I am could do
          > the detecting, that would be great.

          There are more issues to be taken care of, such as LF to CR-LF
          translation. That would be enough to say "just use the PC archives", if
          it weren't for patches. And the files obtained from CVS also use the
          Unix layout and line separators. Sounds like a script is needed to make
          a copy of the tree to be able to run NSIS.

          > Also, is there any reason why the installer doesn't distribute the
          > command-line version of vim? It is very useful for batch processing
          > (some of my scripts assume its presence too).

          Several reasons:
          - It adds to the size of the package.
          - Not many people are expected to use the console version.
          - There are actually several console versions for different systems (Win
          9x and NT/2000/XP). Would have to include at least two.

          > Could we at least have the patches to dos_inst.c as this allows me to
          > more easily make my own distribution for work where this behaviour is
          > normal.
          > Another option could be to choose a different name for the .exe - for
          > example viminst.exe & vimunins.exe - would this be more palatable?

          I don't like either solution, because it is so common to type "install"
          or click on "install.exe". I think you will just have to move these
          executables elsewhere if you insist on adding this directory to your
          $PATH.

          --
          FATHER: You killed eight wedding guests in all!
          LAUNCELOT: Er, Well ... the thing is ... I thought your son was a lady.
          FATHER: I can understand that.
          "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" PYTHON (MONTY)
          PICTURES LTD

          /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net
          \\\
          /// Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.vim.org
          \\\
          \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.a-a-p.org
          ///
          \\\ Lord Of The Rings helps Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org/lotr.html
          ///
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.