First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 61158
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Vim Maintainers <vim@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: TGL <tom.gl@free.fr>
Add CC:
CC:
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
cream-0.30--filetype_fix.patch cream-0.30--filetype_fix.patch patch TGL 2004-08-21 08:42 0000 1.45 KB Details | Diff
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 61158 depends on: Show dependency tree
Show dependency graph
Bug 61158 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)







View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug

Description:   Opened: 2004-08-21 08:41 0000 
Maybe it's a bit early to bug report this since app-vim/gentoo-syntax is not in
portage, but i've tried the 20040820 version from Ciaran's overlay, and it
triggered a bug in Cream. Basically, the "set filetype=..." in
"ftdetect/gentoo.vim" produces several "E218: autocommand nesting too deep"
errors when opening an ebuild file in Cream. 

I will attach a fix for cream-0.30. In case app-vim/gentoo-syntax reachs
portage, then cream ebuild should probably be revision-bumped with that patch.
I've also reported upstream, so in case cream-0.31 is released before
gentoo-syntax, there will be probably no real need for such a bugfix revision
on 0.30.

------- Comment #1 From TGL 2004-08-21 08:42:28 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=37868) [edit]
cream-0.30--filetype_fix.patch

------- Comment #2 From Ciaran McCreesh 2004-08-21 08:44:05 0000 ------- 
Which cream are you running? 0.30 or 0.30-r1?

------- Comment #3 From TGL 2004-08-21 08:51:22 0000 ------- 
0.30-r1

------- Comment #4 From Ciaran McCreesh 2004-08-21 09:08:12 0000 ------- 
Aah, ok, now I get it. Running filetype on a filetype autocmd seems rather
strange to me. Wouldn't they be better off using the after/ syntax stuff?

------- Comment #5 From Ciaran McCreesh 2004-08-26 12:09:07 0000 ------- 
I just added gentoo-syntax to the tree, so looks like we need this. Fix in
cream-0.30-r2, thanks very much.
First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug