1 |
On nie, 2017-07-23 at 17:46 +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 22:00:16 +0100 Sergei Trofimovich wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 16:27:39 -0400 |
4 |
> > Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > > Packages currently handle installation of vim syntax support files |
7 |
> > > inconsistently. Some builds install the files if the "vim-syntax" USE |
8 |
> > > flag is enabled, while others install them unconditionally. |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > Do these files fall into the "small text files" category for |
11 |
> > > unconditional installation? If so, we should probably phase out the |
12 |
> > > vim-syntax USE flag. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > I'd say use flag is not needed as long as it does not slow vim startup |
15 |
> > down by much and does not change editor behaviour for every single |
16 |
> > edited file type. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> The problem here is more complicated. What about 100 plugins from |
19 |
> different packages which of them is fast enough, but together they |
20 |
> are slowing vim down to unacceptable level? Such case is |
21 |
> especially sensitive on slow hardware. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> That's why fine control over vim files is mandatory. Yes, it |
24 |
> requires to rebuild packages, but with ccache/distcc available this |
25 |
> is not a huge issue. And if someone really want to avoid such |
26 |
> rebuilds, vim files can always be put to a separated package; |
27 |
> though I see no real reason to do this. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Using INSTALL_MASK here is not an option, because toggling of |
30 |
> individual vim files using it will be a nightmare. |
31 |
> |
32 |
|
33 |
The tool you're looking for is called eselect. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Best regards, |
37 |
Michał Górny |