From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 29 19:28:23 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DC530C; Wed, 29 May 2013 19:28:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mezz.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vb0-x22b.google.com (mail-vb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22b]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF10298; Wed, 29 May 2013 19:28:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e12so4251000vbg.2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:28:22 -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=4hwI4IrbBcodeD+7YXMW2uSbQW64D5w0R+CfK05rAvY=; b=i/PSW9cj7QZVtwBz8nshyr6DRySH+F0OZK+46I8RYUlvN/eLmqV4RA1KlcZMgNqzbO BKPSlgkRwrGlTP6K1uYmZCS9QQGTGbVJiVRSa/aSsZzs5x3aq5rNBwBlrP8cqrDFnbeh MVHft22ycL03iu9P+Q2xS8H2g4dnoMwZecphVSthjJO1uBEh3PblL5erBatMUyofDnQk pBhH6QaZl4hoKEN1VgVFqJU5doYwCeDfyl5Ei7hP3RPKlGPaQT4NIHqDpEmtLtWD183A MhQe90fXafrB2gYQzxHFyI0HFC7W4+9E96f6Ie1LX7l6ZsGw93YyEn5VvLNaOajhqPCj nlNQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.225.228 with SMTP id rn4mr2587231vec.35.1369855702544; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.209.226 with HTTP; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:28:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130524212318.B967FE6739@smtp.hushmail.com> Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:28:22 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: The vim port needs a refresh From: Jeremy Messenger To: Chris Rees Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: Wed, 29 May 2013 19:28:23 -0000 On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Chris Rees wrote: > > 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. Actually, it's not wrong when OPTIONS has bugs. > If you don't like OPTIONS, fix them, I did by BATCH=yes. ;-) > 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. Fix the OPTIONS first and I will accept it in my ports. Pretty simple. Since I don't like OPTIONS, so I am not required to fix it. If you do really want OPTIONS to be added in my port then please fix it. Although, I have lost in track of which bugs have been fixed in OPTIONS. I know one important bug is: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2013-April/083035.html As same as with the LICENSE. I will not add in my ports until he writes document of it. But I will accept the patch of it though. Well, again, I might be out of date but I seem still can't find it in the porter handbook as today. > Chris -- mezz.freebsd@gmail.com - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org