| 1 |
The problem is that if you build vim with USE=X, and X is not running, |
| 2 |
vim will not start as it cannot see X (note that I am talking about |
| 3 |
console vim running in a console with no X, not gvim.) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
This was apparently a bug in vim at one time, but even the bugfixed |
| 6 |
console version can want X in some circumstances that are likely to |
| 7 |
catch people out when can they least expect or afford it (e.g., X |
| 8 |
failure: how do you edit XF86Config quickly if you have no X and |
| 9 |
therefore no vim: has happened to me!). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
To me, the question is whether to stick with a convention that is not |
| 12 |
appropriate in this circumstance, or do a logical workaround that can |
| 13 |
satisfactorily overcome this behaviour. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Can someone define why console vim needs X anyway, apart from the highly |
| 16 |
critical trick of putting a title on the X window? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
BillK |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 02:28, Björn Lindström wrote: |
| 22 |
> William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> [20030429 18:05]: |
| 23 |
> > I agree this is fine in theory, but what I am trying to push is that |
| 24 |
> > building vim with X is a *BAD* idea because if you lose X as happens |
| 25 |
> > occasionally (see the forums for problems with the current XFree-4.3 |
| 26 |
> > upgrade), you can (and in my case it *HAS* happened), be left with a |
| 27 |
> > system without a viable editor - workstation, server or whatever. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I don't get this. Where I sit, gvim launches vim if it can't connect to |
| 30 |
> an X server. |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives