| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 14, 2002 at 03:10:22PM +0100, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Hannes Mehnert wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Hi everyone, |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I just commited seperate ebuilds for gvim and vim. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I seem to be a lone dissenting voice here, so I'm proably missing |
| 10 |
> something, but is this really a good idea? I've always regarded the |
| 11 |
> split packaging of vim in other distros as an unfortunate consequence of |
| 12 |
> their not being able to handle compile time options. Since one of gentoos |
| 13 |
> strengths is that it can this seems an odd decision - what's the advantage |
| 14 |
> over using the X and gtk USE settings like before? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I agree with you. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I have also been looking at the vim ebild before and wondered wether it |
| 19 |
really installed everything it was supposed to on my system (I suspect |
| 20 |
rgvim was missing :-) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The current ebuilds seem to be overly complex (they were fun to make |
| 23 |
though, I read ;-). If I read the ebuilds properly, this is what would |
| 24 |
(should) happen if I execute 'emerge gvim': |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
1. Compile vim, without gui support, and install using 'make install' |
| 27 |
2. Compile vim, with gui support, copy the binary to the correct |
| 28 |
location. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Seems like if I would want only 'terminal'-vim then I need to emerge |
| 31 |
'vim-core'. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I believe it could all be done with a simpler ebuild than the current |
| 34 |
three (four including the old one), by simply using the make files that |
| 35 |
come with the tar-ball... or am I missing something fundamental here? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Now I am off to make my first ebuild, it'll be for vim ;-) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
/M |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Without chaos there would be no fun and games. |
| 44 |
-- Jonah Kinata |
Archives