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