Please test: ctags-5.6-1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Please test: ctags-5.6-1

Warren Young
I have just packaged ctags for Cygwin for the first time, due to the
recent release of version 5.6.  Since I'm new at this and I'm using my
own hand-rolled package build system, please treat this as a newly ITP'd
package.  It looks right to me, but it needs review.

The files:

http://tangentsoft.net/cygwin/ctags/ctags-5.6-1.tar.bz2
http://tangentsoft.net/cygwin/ctags/ctags-5.6-1-src.tar.bz2
http://tangentsoft.net/cygwin/ctags/setup.hint
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please test: ctags-5.6-1

Chris Sutcliffe-2
> I have just packaged ctags for Cygwin for the first time, due to the
> recent release of version 5.6.  Since I'm new at this and I'm using my
> own hand-rolled package build system, please treat this as a newly ITP'd
> package.  It looks right to me, but it needs review.

I'm curious does version 5.6 include the patch for vim for omni completion?

From the vim help (:help ft-c-omni):

Completion of C code requires a tags file.  You should use Exuberant ctags,
because it adds extra information that is needed for completion.  You can find
it here: http://ctags.sourceforge.net/
For version 5.5.4 you should add a patch that adds the "typename:" field:
        ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/unstable/patches/ctags-5.5.4.patch

Just curious.

Chris

--
Chris Sutcliffe
http://ir0nh34d.blogspot.com
http://emergedesktop.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please test: ctags-5.6-1

Warren Young
Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
>> I have just packaged ctags for Cygwin for the first time, due to the
>> recent release of version 5.6.  Since I'm new at this and I'm using my
>> own hand-rolled package build system, please treat this as a newly ITP'd
>> package.  It looks right to me, but it needs review.
>
> I'm curious does version 5.6 include the patch for vim for omni completion?

Perhaps.  From the changelog:

* Added new extension field "typeref" [thanks to Bram Moolenaar].

It looks close to what you talk about, but not exactly.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please test: ctags-5.6-1

Warren Young
In reply to this post by Warren Young
Warren Young wrote:
> I have just packaged ctags for Cygwin for the first time, due to the
> recent release of version 5.6.  Since I'm new at this and I'm using my
> own hand-rolled package build system, please treat this as a newly ITP'd
> package.  It looks right to me, but it needs review.

Anyone?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please test: ctags-5.6-1

Dr. Volker Zell
>>>>> Warren Young writes:

    > Warren Young wrote:
    >> I have just packaged ctags for Cygwin for the first time, due to the
    >> recent release of version 5.6.  Since I'm new at this and I'm using
    >> my own hand-rolled package build system, please treat this as a
    >> newly ITP'd package.  It looks right to me, but it needs review.

    > Anyone?


Builds fine, GTG.

Why don't you use cygport, it'll help in the long run ?

Ciao
  Volker

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please test: ctags-5.6-1

Warren Young
Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
>
> Builds fine, GTG.

Thanks for testing it!

> Why don't you use cygport, it'll help in the long run ?

I haven't been paying close attention to it.  I thought it was still
considered experimental.  Are you endorsing it for general use, then?

I had bad luck with g-b-s when I first tried to package ctags, so I went
into the packaging process wary about using others' tools.  But now that
I have something that works, I have a fallback position, so I'm more
willing to experiment.

I believe my problems with g-b-s were due to the fact that ctags uses
autoconf only, no automake.  Do you know of anyone using cygport with
such a package?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please test: ctags-5.6-1

Yaakov (Cygwin/X)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Warren Young wrote:
> I believe my problems with g-b-s were due to the fact that ctags uses
> autoconf only, no automake.  Do you know of anyone using cygport with
> such a package?

Sure, cygport is designed to be flexible, and I've used cygport for lots
of different kinds of packages, including such cases.  If the build
system isn't broken, (cyg)autoreconf should recognize that automake
isn't be used; else, just call autoconf.


Yaakov
cygport author :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEiIkMpiWmPGlmQSMRAgMOAKD0KIB2CXwvlG9q9BPJKdrLS2ekQwCeN4dJ
bzqP+z/+USpN9htjjHLoQ4Y=
=9zo6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----