FS#13897 - [vim] Update python.vim to match version of Python in Arch
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Jake Muss (jaketmuss) - Saturday, 21 March 2009, 06:51 GMT
Last edited by Dan Griffiths (Ghost1227) - Sunday, 18 April 2010, 07:39 GMT
Opened by Jake Muss (jaketmuss) - Saturday, 21 March 2009, 06:51 GMT
Last edited by Dan Griffiths (Ghost1227) - Sunday, 18 April 2010, 07:39 GMT
|
Details
As Arch is currently using python 2.6.1, it would be helpful
if vim had the matching syntax file for Python
(/usr/share/vim/syntax/python.vim).
This is where you can find the various versions of python.vim: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=790 The file for 2.6.1 is: http://www.vim.org/scripts/download_script.php?src_id=9262 Currently arch ships with a version for Python 2.4 from 2006: " Vim syntax file " Language: Python " Maintainer: Neil Schemenauer <nas@python.ca> " Updated: 2006-10-15 " Added Python 2.4 features 2006 May 4 (Dmitry Vasiliev) |
And I can confirm this in vim-7.2.234-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.gz which I got from testing.
This file is *old*.
It now has the ability to highlight values being assigned to variables. :)
I can maybe take a look at what the problem here is because I really like the newer python.vim (2+ year difference).
If python.vim is affected, then maybe others are affected also.
Hopefully I will have some spare time to look into this.f
However, as arch provides a certain version of python, should it provide a matching set vim files?
Maybe this is therefore an issue for the python package.
Even python.org says that the current production versions are 2.6.2 and 3.1.1 That puts the ball back to vim's upstream, because 2.4 is clearly not 'current'
The python vim syntax file is not updated very often and given the number of python users that use vim it would hopefully not be to much extra work for the python pkg maintainer, and could be repeated for any other packages that have more up-to-date syntax files.
This would also remove any effort from the vim maintainer, enabling this package to be properly maintained.
If we move the problem into the python package(s) we need at least remove the python.vim file from the package itself.
Did they provide any reasons for not updating ?
http://groups.google.com/group/vim_dev/browse_thread/thread/51e8e862c5ef4460?hl=en
So it looks like it's not an upstream problem after all, the hg repository is up-to-date.
You can use this package : http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33422
[ ] vim-7.0.tar.bz2 07-May-2006 16:17 6.3M
[ ] vim-7.1.tar.bz2 12-May-2007 14:10 6.6M
[ ] vim-7.2.tar.bz2 06-Sep-2008 16:35 6.9M
So maybe just provide a script to get the updated files? Or does vim-hg do for now?
I just saw that the vim package was built on 30/09 but the python.vim file was put on 28/10 :
http://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/runtime/syntax/ python.vim
So maybe it would be sufficient to rebuild the vim package now to pick an up-to-date version of python.vim .
But you should probably read this discussion to know my opinion on the matter :
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2009-October/013844.html
The only thing that changed since then is that instead of an unofficial git repo, there is now an official hg repository which gives you an easy way to get the latest code and runtime.
So I highly recommend using vim-hg rather than arch package :)
As I showed you, vim releases are quite rare, and last one is quite old. Applying all the patches (I agree that's silly) is actually the same than using the development version/repository.
There are several projects who don't release often enough, and you have to use a development version or snapshot to get all the latest fixes and/or improvements.
This seems to be the case for the toolchain : binutils,glibc,gcc
Also libfetch has no release.
I am sure there are more examples, and these are all in core.
In general, I think it is good to be conservative and keep to release versions only, but here it seems like there's a demonstrated need, based on the version of a related package.
So I think we should (narrowly) grab the newer python.vim.
Do others agree/disagree? Tobias, I know you have a lot of insight and experience here.
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/14640
that this problem goes away? I see a newer python.vim in the hg repo.
This is not to say we'd do 14640, but I was just noticing the relationship.