On Sun, 2013-07-28 at 20:43 -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > But I have to say that I like vim/gvim, only > dislike the way it is maintained, displaying a *new version with x.y.z* > in the site, but only providing an original version x.y tar ball that > can be several years old and individual 1 to z patches. This is > misleading, for that, LFS/BLFS is always behind, Fedora and Arch are > sometimes years ahead of us, thousands of patches ahead.
It is my understanding that those 'patches' simply represent individual commits against Vim's equivalent of 'svn trunk' or 'cvs head' or 'git master' - i.e. by applying the patches we'd effectively be running the latest development version. When this was pointed out to us, as it's a bit of an odd use of the word 'patch' IMO, we decided to roll back to the 'stock' 7.3 version with no patches applied. Given that, I'm really not that bothered about being years/thousands of patches behind other distributions. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
