Re: RFC: fewer vim variants

2003-09-07 Thread Marcelo E. Magallon
Hi Luca, sorry about the Cc, but eye-balling -devel didn't reveal much activity from you, so I'm not sure if you track the list. M-F-T is set to d-d. I propose to restructure the vim package so that it builds fewer vim variants. I propose to have only the following: vim (aka

Re: RFC: fewer vim variants

2003-09-07 Thread Norbert Tretkowski
* Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the moment: * Perl is lost (that threaded thing) As one of the new Co-Maintainers, I'm going to upload the package from http://p.d.o/~nobse/vim/ to experimental this evening. The perl issue is fixed in this package. * Can't

Re: RFC: fewer vim variants

2003-06-22 Thread Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
On Sunday 15 June 2003 17:39, Marc Wilson wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:23:34AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: What about a version _with_ all non-threaded interpreters, but _without_ gtk2/kde support? That would be console Vim, from either package. The GUI doesn't add so much to it

Re: RFC: fewer vim variants

2003-06-16 Thread Jörgen Hägg
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Hello people, I propose to restructure the vim package so that it builds fewer vim variants. I propose to have only the following: vim (aka vim-tiny; no interpreters, no docs) kvim (including all non-threaded interpreters; kde support; no

Re: RFC: fewer vim variants

2003-06-16 Thread Jos Fonseca
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Luca Filipozzi wrote: Hello people, I propose to restructure the vim package so that it builds fewer vim variants. I propose to have only the following: vim (aka vim-tiny; no interpreters, no docs) kvim (including all non-threaded interpreters; kde