1 |
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 19:53:22 +0100 |
2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:44:32 -0400 |
5 |
> Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > There is an ancient bug[1] dealing with the "vim-with-x" USE flag. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > I think it makes sense to rename this flag from 'vim-with-x' to just |
9 |
> > 'X', but thought I'd raise the issue here since this USE flag has |
10 |
> > been around since before time began. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> It's there because if you break your X you probably want a usable |
13 |
> editor to help you fix it. |
14 |
|
15 |
As Duncan already mentioned, vim is not the only 'primarily console' |
16 |
application which can link against X libraries. Thus, if we really have |
17 |
to use another flag than 'X' (which idea I personally dislike), then I |
18 |
think it would be better to choose some more common name. |
19 |
|
20 |
Additionally, as Jim mentioned, there's still a lot of other libraries |
21 |
which could make vim useless. Thus, I think the best solution would be |
22 |
to encourage upstream (or even provide a patch if they like the idea) |
23 |
to support dynamic runtime linking with all optional libraries in vim. |
24 |
|
25 |
Thanks to that, vim would be able to run fine with totally broken |
26 |
libraries. If it would fail to 'load' them, it would just disable |
27 |
particular features. Additionally, user should be able then to |
28 |
explicitly disable loading particular libraries if they would cause |
29 |
segfaults or other problems afterwards. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Best regards, |
33 |
Michał Górny |
34 |
|
35 |
<http://mgorny.alt.pl> |
36 |
<xmpp:mgorny@××××××.ru> |