Re: Why Vimball archives are evil?

Jakson A. Aquino wrote:

...[snip]...

>>
>> Is there an official recommendation on this subject? I haven't noticed any
>> guidelines on the scripts upload page, which simply refers to a "collection
>> of bundled files". I seem to remember at some point seeing a script page
>> that provided both .zip and some other format, but I'm not sure how this
>> would work in practice: the upload file dialog allows you to specify only
>> one file, so each archive format would have to be uploaded separately: i.e.,
>> distinct version numbers and release notes (though I suppose they could be
>> identical).
>
> Actually, Vim's documentation recommends the use of vimball, followed
> by zip archives.
>
> :h distribute-script

Ah! I had overlooked this. I had avoided using Vimball because (not
realizing it was part of the standard Vim distribution) I mistakenly
assumed it would add a dependency. I see that it was first incorporated
in Vim 7. I'm thinking pretty much everyone should be using Vim 7 by
now, so I guess I'll switch to packaging with Vimball.

Thanks,
Brett S.

>
> Th use of Vimball is the easiest way of installing and uninstalling
> plugins. I don't use vimball to package my plugin because it has some
> binary files (bmp and png) and Vimball doesn't deal with them. An
> advantage of tar.gz is that it deals with symbolic links while zip
> archives store copies of the linked files. My plugin has symbolic
> links but I distribute a zip file anyway because it's easier for
> Windows users to install the plugin since Windows has native support
> to the zip format.
>
> Jakson Aquino
>

--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php