added bitbake syntax for sublime 4

[wahajmurtaza]

• I'm the package's author and/or maintainer.
• I have read the docs.
• I have tagged a release with a semver version number.
• My package repo has a description and a README describing what it's for and how to use it.
• My package doesn't add context menu entries. *
• My package doesn't add key bindings. **
• Any commands are available via the command palette.
• Preferences and keybindings (if any) are listed in the menu and the command palette, and open in split view.
• If my package is a syntax it doesn't also add a color scheme. ***
• I use .gitattributes to exclude files from the package: images, test files, sublime-project/workspace.

My package is similar to bitbake syntax However it should still be added because the old one doesn't support sublime text 4. I needed to create my own to work with bitbake. Also I added version to be below 4 for old one

[kaste]

Ideally this would be a PR against the original repo.

Depending on the response, we can also still keep the name of the package, and declare a different repo per version. (btw ">3084 <4000" is not supported.)

[braver]

@Driim would you consider a PR against your bitbake package?

[wahajmurtaza]

I fixed the ">3084 <4000" .
Regarding the PR to the original repo, this syntax doesn't work well with ST3. So have to keep 2 different packages.

[rchl]

It can be the same repo with two entries, one using tag with a prefix like st3-.

It would be better to not create duplicate syntax as it creates confusion and the existing one is already referenced in some places, for example https://github.com/sublimelsp/LSP-bitbake/blob/823046c2896ce03341b181cf474a5661a77b334b/README.md#L8-L8

The author of original syntax is active in the community. I'm sure that a deal can be made here to update it if yours is better.

[rchl]

Actually I was a bit confused - I was thinking of another syntax. It appears there are 3 now:

• one on package control - https://github.com/Driim/bitbake-syntax/
• one referenced from LSP-bitbake by @huyhoang8398 - https://github.com/huyhoang8398/BitBake-Syntax
• yours - https://github.com/wahajmurtaza/sublime-text-4-bitbake-syntax

I think that a one good syntax should come out of this.

[rchl]

Also, what makes you say that the original syntax is only for ST3? I haven't tried it but it looks like a modern syntax that should work in ST4.

(The package mentioning ST3 is probably just a short-sighted comment made at the time of creation because that was the latest version then)

[wahajmurtaza]

@rchl the driim package crashes when a bb file is opened. Please note that I have found that it is only occurring in my ubuntu machine and this works on my windows system.
I was using this package on ST3 on ubuntu before I updated and needed fixing.

Regardless @huyhoang8398 package is not in the package-control, will needs testing on linux machine.

[huyhoang8398]

hello, im the maintainer of LSP-bitbake and also made my own Bitbake syntax due to the original Bitbake syntax cannot working properly currently due to with_prototype , as @rchl suggested, i also think best way is to open PR to the original repo, or ask if he could transfered that project to us, that's why i closed my PR #9325.

[braver]

Since @Driim hasn't responded yet, let's say we replace the original package. The new repo should have one tag on it for ST3 as @rchl suggests, and a new tag range for ST4+. And then we can move all of this forward. Make sense @wahajmurtaza?

[kaste]

A canonical way is

        {
            "name": "Bitbake Syntax",
            "details": "https://github.com/wahajmurtaza/sublime-text-4-bitbake-syntax",
            "author": ["Driim", "wahajmurtaza"],
            "labels": ["language syntax"],
            "releases": [
                {
                    "sublime_text": ">=4000",
                    "tags": true,
                },
                {
                    "sublime_text": "<4000",
                    "tags": true,
                    "base": "https://github.com/Driim/bitbake-syntax"
                }
            ]
        },

if I'm reading @braver correctly and we want @Driim's version for older ST builds. If so, this is the transparent change.