From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Aug 12 04:29:29 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id EAA14549 for ports-outgoing; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 04:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vector.jhs.no_domain (slip139-92-42-132.ut.nl.ibm.net [139.92.42.132]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA14466; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 04:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vector.jhs.no_domain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vector.jhs.no_domain (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA17054; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 13:26:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199608121126.NAA17054@vector.jhs.no_domain> To: Chuck Robey cc: Narvi , bvsmith@lbl.gov, ports@freebsd.org, gj@freebsd.org, me@freebsd.org, asami@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xfig.3.1.4 extension to support vi -C signals linkage From: "Julian H. Stacey" Reply-To: "Julian H. Stacey" Organization: Vector Systems Ltd. Address: Holz Strasse 27d, 80469 Munich, Germany Phone: +49.89.268616 Fax: +49.89.2608126 Web: http://www.freebsd.org/~jhs/ Mailer: EXMH 1.6.7, PGP available In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 11 Aug 1996 15:49:02 EDT." Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 13:25:58 +0200 Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi, Reference: > From: Chuck Robey > > On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Narvi wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Chuck Robey wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > > > > > > I have developed an extension to xfig.3.1.4 (Ref. freebsd/ports/graphic - s/xfig) > > > > that allows an adjacent xterm running 'vi' to send a signal on each ':w - ' > > > > that xfig interprets as a re-open & redisplay command. > > > > > > > > This mechanism is compatible with my previous work on vi ghostview & ch - imera. > > > > > > I like the matchup, I wonder if there's some way to make something like > > > this work inside the standard ports setup. There's not port of nvi (Keit - h > > > Bostic's latest version of vi) although it compiles easily on FreeBSD. D - o > > > you have pointers to your work on ghostview and and chimera? > > > > > > > How about making it a separate, local port that would depend on the > > presence of xfig and build a new xfig? Just like tclX does... > > I want to hear from Julian, does adding this functionality make any > difference to how the port works in the absence of a patched vi? No, none (the extended ports are fully backward compatible), there'll just be an increased functionality that's not easily accessible, at a cost of perhaps an extra 30/50 bytes in the executable of those 3 {ghostview, chimera, xfig} ports. > I'm > looking for a reason why we would NOT want this mod in our ports? > Can't think of any except those 30 or so bytes, I even default my extra functionality as `off by default'. > I'm > thinking that maybe this should go into xfig, ghostview, chimera, and > maybe a patched port of nvi. Sounds nice to me :-) > > > I sure like the basic idea, a timesaver for sure. Yup :-) gj@freebsd.org has seen the {ghostview or chimera} + vi in action, (I use it to type letters in groff & `wysiwyg' view it in gv, via make rules), no one has seen the xfig + vi link mechanism yet though. Julian -- Julian H. Stacey jhs@freebsd.org http://www.freebsd.org/~jhs/