Re: Apple's and openSUSE's distributed Vim versions

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Lifepillar <lifepillar@lifepillar.me> wrote:
> On 24/11/2017 15:03, Christian Brabandt wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fr, 24 Nov 2017, Lifepillar wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/11/2017 12:46, Lifepillar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 24/11/2017 11:36, Christian Brabandt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> has anybody stumbled over the fact, that Apple seems to distribute a
>>>>> Vim
>>>>> version 7.4.8056, which is a version that never actually existed?
>>>>>
>>>>> See here
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/Valloric/YouCompleteMe/issues/2721#issuecomment-317234769
>>>>>
>>>>> or here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://medium.com/@amit.kulkarni/learn-linux-vim-basic-features-19134461ab85
>>>>>
>>>>> (more information here:
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/vim/comments/7etvld/why_i_love_vim/dq88yk3/)
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it very strange, if this is true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In macOS 10.13.1, `/usr/bin/vim --version` returns Vim 8.0 (Included
>>>> patches: 1-503, 505-642). Vim 8.0.642 is what is shown in the intro
>>>> screen.
>>>>
>>>> (Btw, any idea on why patch 504 has been skipped?)
>>>>
>>>> I vaguely remember that in older OS versions there was Vim 7.3, and I
>>>> have never seen 7.4. But I have always used the version from Homebrew,
>>>> so I may have missed it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I put my hands on a machine with macOS Sierra, and, in fact, its version
>>> is 7.4.8056. It has patch 8.0.0056, though, because invalid filetype
>>> names raise E474, so that explains the version number.
>>>
>>> Much more interesting, IMHO, is trying to understand why they skipped
>>> patch 504 in the current release. The commit message reads:
>>>
>>> patch 8.0.0504: looking up an Ex command is a bit slow
>>>
>>> Problem: Looking up an Ex command is a bit slow.
>>> Solution: Instead of just using the first letter, also use the second
>>> letter
>>> to skip ahead in the list of commands. Generate the table
>>> with a
>>> Perl script. (Dominique Pelle, closes #1589)
>>>
>>> Maybe related to the fact that they built Vim without +perl (so, maybe
>>> they didn't have Perl in their build environment)? Are there are commits
>>> between 1 and 642 that require Perl?
>>
>>
>> Don't know, but +perl is not needed for that patch I believe.
>
>
> No, but in 8.0.0504, perl was needed to generate the Ex command
> lookup table. My *wild* guess is that their build environment didn't
> have Perl (corroborated by the fact that they didn't include +perl),
> so they skipped the patch.
>
> Patch 8.0.0572 removed the Perl requirement, but they didn't notice,
> didn't care or didn't have time to care, so the gap remains.
>
> Of course, this is pure, and somewhat frivolous, speculation :)
>
> Life.

On openSUSE Linux 42.3 (which is the current "stable" version) the
included Vim (without GUI) and gvim (with GTK2 but not Gnome) binaries
are 7.4.326 without patch 208 "compiler warnings on 64 bit Windows"
which is "don't care" on Linux AFAICT. What puzzles me here is why
they stayed with such an outdated version. No other version of Vim is
currently available on the various software repositories for openSUSE
42.3. Maybe there won't be any Vim upgrade before openSUSE 42.4 or
43.0, whichever comes first; I don't know if there is a later Vim on
their Tumbleweed (development) "rolling release" which is supposed to
be "bleeding-edge state-of-the-art" and even "not fully tested".

Best regards,
Tony.

--
--
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

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.