From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 28 21:14:08 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84106997; Tue, 28 May 2013 21:14:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ie0-x231.google.com (mail-ie0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450EC9E2; Tue, 28 May 2013 21:14:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 9so22865897iec.36 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 14:14:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aYD7ePTD3z08QOtEkQkyNsKfdQdm9tPccVlL/CYo+Dg=; b=kR70Xix8HftBK/s/QIaid4OHDaDWBwJBBPa2rF3JGGoxTdZ1zaOVNiU7kkLiaKvnKW GO14glm8ux4G3QaTYeniUXuun1wlqYv2dfsjZafWaQ9pkQAJDb56IdBhQzKpFJuHncD2 ClYP0yo2jP31ZHf/6niRIE5PcApJxF1whJs0DsH0gfr+WYLKDlArkX1bVX1Gut4asAK5 mr+b/YXbCxBMXOimGCJjlEVpTGB5kBpRICZxynTN5RP/Xc54l9U7mucqUpVXKhai0Uq6 FAB4yZHRQZsovDbFByZmlH4rPYMRfkmM1E181QzBQirARD+8VoSRwRkA4bgrDdkemykA EC7w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.41.210 with SMTP id q18mr19964031ice.13.1369775647953; Tue, 28 May 2013 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.23.243 with HTTP; Tue, 28 May 2013 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.23.243 with HTTP; Tue, 28 May 2013 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130524212318.B967FE6739@smtp.hushmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:14:07 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: The vim port needs a refresh From: Chris Rees To: Jeremy Messenger Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: Chris Rees , "ports@freebsd.org" , Kenta Suzumoto X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 21:14:08 -0000 On 28 May 2013 06:08, "Jeremy Messenger" wrote: > > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > > On 24 May 2013 22:23, Kenta Suzumoto wrote: > >> > >> Hello all. The editors/vim port is currently a mess and needs some changes. > >> > >> - It fetches almost 700 patches from what seems like a dial-up connection in AUSTRALIA. > >> > >> You might as well be downloading a 1080p movie from a rock in the north pole, because that's about how fast it is. > >> This can be very easily avoided by putting all the patches into a single tarball and hosting it anywhere decent. I've > >> seen someone in ##freebsd on freenode handing out a tarball with all the patches many times, and everyone asks > >> "why isn't this the default? why is some random guy giving me distfiles?" etc. Seems like a no-brainer. > >> > >> - By default, it builds lots of gui stuff that certainly almost no one wants > >> > >> It almost seems like the vim-lite port should be renamed vim and the vim port should be renamed gvim. I had to > >> google to come up with this solution, because I can't even disable that stuff in "make config" (another problem!) > >> > >> .if ${.CURDIR}=="/usr/ports/editors/vim" > >> WITH_VIM_OPTIONS=yes > >> WITHOUT_X11=yes > >> .endif > >> > >> People shouldn't have to find this hack to be able to install vim normally (and no, telling them to use vim-lite isn't normal). > >> I'm surprised that none of these changes have been made yet. I've heard it's "because the maintainer won't listen to reason" > >> but I have no way to know if that's the case or not. I also heard bapt@had an optionsNG patch that he wouldn't > >> integrate into the port for some reason. Please, let's get this stuff fixed once and for all. None of it requires a large amount > >> of work on anyone's part. > > > > I'm very sad to talk of a fellow developer like this, but I'm afraid > > the maintainer of vim is a contrarian who thinks he knows better than > > everyone else on the matter. > > > > For years, people have been begging him to get over his fear of > > OPTIONS, and he sits in the way of progress against almost everyone's > > wishes. > > FYI, the OPTIONS is not required to have. I agree with him pretty much > everything about the OPTIONS. I have refused to add OPTIONS in any of > my ports before I gave up a lot of them long time ago. All of his > thought of OPTIONS are very valid. The OPTIONS still has bugs. > > BTW: I always have BATCH=yes in my make.conf, because I hate OPTIONS a lot. Putting BATCH=yes in your environment is entirely up to you, but forcing every user of the ports tree to learn a new way of dealing with certain ports because "They're mine and they're special" is absolutely wrong. If you don't like OPTIONS, fix them, but please don't labour under the misapprehension that users are happy to have an inconsistent ports tree and unpredictable ports tree on the whim of a few maverick developers. Chris