Re: Redhat Linux has crippled Vim

On 28/01/12 05:03, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> On 27/01/12 09:25, howardb21 wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jan 26, 3:39 pm, Steve Hall<digit...@dancingpaper.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM, howard
>>> Schwartz<howard...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Redhat's ``enhanced'' version is not - It adds one or two trivial
>>>> features.
>>>
>>> Better check your :version, vim-enhanced is compiled by redhat with
>>> the "huge" +feature-list. Only the "-" items below are missing from
>>> mine:
>>
>> Looks like you have the gui version (for X windows?). That is where
>> one gets the `huge' features. But my friend needs vim, not gvim (see
>> other posts). I would have thought the gui version would include vim,
>> as it does for ms windows. But it does not.
>> You must be in a graphical environment to get the huge features. As
>> far as I can tell the standard versions are: minimal, enhanced, and gui
>>
>
> As other posters have said, on Linux (and, in fact, on all Unix-like
> OSes, which means practically everywhere except on MS-Windows), the GUI
> executable can also be used in console mode, by invoking it as "vim"
> (through a softlink or an alias, or by having that be the actual name of
> the executable).
>
> On my system, I compile two versions of Vim:
> - a Huge version with GTK2/Gnome GUI and +perl +python +ruby +tcl, named
> "vim" with softlinks "view", "vimdiff", "gvim", "gview", etc. linking to
> it. It works in console mode or GUI mode depending on how it is invoked;
> - a Tiny version with no GUI and with most features compiled out, which
> I use mostly as a sanity check that no #ifdef clauses are missing. It is
> named "vi". I use it only rarely, but the executable is only 610K
> instead of the 3.9M of the other: quite a difference!
>
> If you still want to compile your own Vim (rather than create a softlink
> by something like "pushd ~/bin; l, -sv `which gvim` vim; popd", which I
-----------------------------------^ typo
-----------------------------------^ should be: ln -sv `which gvim` vim
> think is easiest andleast error-prone), it is feasible, even on a system
> where you have no admin privileges, provided that all necessary
> "development" packages are installed (or that you can install them e.g.
> in your user space) and that you place the executable in ~/bin rather
> than in the default /usr/local/bin. Similarly, you may either place the
> runtime files in ~/share/vim/vim73 (or something), or rely on the files
> placed by your sysadmin in /usr/share/vim/vim73 (or something), but in
> the latter case the final step will be "make installvimbin" rather than
> "make install" and in all cases the executable must know -- via the
> config arguments -- where its runtime files are to be found. That's (for
> version 7.3) the vim73 subfolder of what will appear under "fall-back
> for $VIM" near the middle of the output of :version in the build you
> compile.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Tony.
--
The wind doth taste so bitter sweet,
Like Jaspar wine and sugar,
It must have blown through someone's feet,
Like those of Caspar Weinberger.
-- P. Opus

--
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