Pavel Roskin wrote:
>> BTW, attached is a patch for the lsm syntax file. I don't
>> know if it's OK, but IMO it's better, so please verify. Did
>> you notice I don't endorse Shareware ? I could just change it
>> to black/0.
> I believe it's a very bad idea to push any political agenda
> by technical means of this kind. It's not an excuse that the
> existing file already does it.
:-) OK. Let's say I don't want to encourage anyone writing
Shareware. Anyway, it's listed as an option in LSM-TEMPLATE.
I also believe it's a bad idea to use 'linuxconf' and some
other commands like 'taper' in the sh syntax file. IMO
fileutils, sh-utils, textutils, util-linux and crucial packages
that are part of any distribution should be enough.
> By the way, why don't you want to highlight Begin3? Just
> because it's obsolete?
Because I thought it was an example to write an accurate .lsm
file. And since syntax highlighting doesn't work with F3 (could
be used with ftpfs), I see no other reason to maintain Begin3.
Of course, it'd be nice to maintain it and have a way to let
the author know it was obsoleted by Begin4.
> I think that the primary role of syntax highlighting should be
> showing the role of the highlighted text, not spotting errors,
> and certainly not determining the political correctness of
> software licenses.
Then another change is incorrect, and we should list
sunsite.unc.edu, metalab.unc.edu, and ibiblio.org ? Also, any
better way to list .tar.Z tar.gz tar.bz2 ? I'd add 3 lines, but
with \s*.tar.* it matches them (and anything else...).
And attached is a suggested patch for the README file. Changes:
- pub/GNOME/sources -> pub/GNOME/stable/sources
- ftp.gnome.org uses the mirrors.
- Removed "European mirrors".
- Cosmetic changes (I don't think "GNU/Linux system" is
correct. The only distribution using it deliberately is Debian.
Thoughts ?).
What about the undelete and 2.0 Kernel part ? Fixed in recent
2.0 ? 2.0.39 ?
>> The system types are duplicated in the FAQ (1.2 Does it run
>> on my machine?) and INSTALL (Notes about the Midnight
>> Commander installation) files. They're also listed in the LSM
>> file. Anyway, it'd be nice to know if the latest release
>> compiles on all these.
> Ideally, the list should correspond to the binaries available
> for download.
Why not reports of success like GCC ? You could ask in the
announcement for 4.5.55 (use gnome-announce ?), and add a
note to the INSTALL file asking the same if compiling the
latest release.
--
0 pervalidus {net, {dyndns.}org} Tel: 55-21-2717-2399 (Niterói-RJ BR)
Attachment:
README.patch.gz
Description: Binary data