Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 13:28:53 +0200 From: John Marino <dragonflybsd@marino.st> To: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Niclas Zeising <zeising+freebsd@daemonic.se>, Kenta Suzumoto <kentas@hush.com>, "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The vim port needs a refresh Message-ID: <51A0A075.9050508@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <CADLo838TYb_AZmVAfmSDLBh6JstUgr=3Z=Y9EnA6kXVgBx1k=Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130524212318.B967FE6739@smtp.hushmail.com> <CADLo83_AgAH0fARvtoYYmw5UEf7%2B3nEEs6U%2B6%2BhY8r0MbTkWFw@mail.gmail.com> <51A09858.4060803@daemonic.se> <CADLo838TYb_AZmVAfmSDLBh6JstUgr=3Z=Y9EnA6kXVgBx1k=Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/25/2013 13:24, Chris Rees wrote: > On 25 May 2013 11:54, Niclas Zeising<zeising+freebsd@daemonic.se> wrote: >> On 05/25/13 10:50, Chris Rees wrote: >>> >>> Alternatively, perhaps we need an editors/vim-options port???? >> >> Just for the record, editors/vim was (and shells/bash) was converted to >> optionsNG not too long ago. > > Ah, that's at least some good news. I notice that it was on yet > another maintainer timeout, so that criticism stands. > > It appears that David is no longer interested. FWIW, the default on the vim port have taken the dports users by surprise. I've gotten several complaints about the boatload of ports that get sucked in (and the amount of bandwidth it requires) by vim. They didn't know vim-lite existed. I agree the default should be "light" and the kitchen sink version should be explicitly requested (if two ports are indeed needed for pre-built binary reasons). John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51A0A075.9050508>