On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 16:24, Wesley Shields <w...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields <w...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> > While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes you're discussing, > >> > do you really think such a comment is needed? Attacks like that are not > >> > necessary. Let your code speak for itself. > >> > > >> > -- WXS > >> > >> This port has major issues and numerous polite requests (including > >> with patches) to fix them have been summarily ignored or rejected. So > >> don't act surprised when people start to get annoyed by the situation. > > > > I'm not surprised. I'm pointing out that attacks like that are not going > > to further the cause of getting the port the care you think it deserves. > > > > Unfortunately I don't know what the answer is beyond polite requests and > > patches to fix the problems as you see them. I do know that attacks are > > not the answer and are in fact harmful to achieving a goal. > > > > -- WXS > > > > Fair enough. My apologies if my comments on this were too aggressive. > > However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer > could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and > would at least be open to discussion about changing it. The biggest > problem here, IMHO, is not the OPTIONS issue, but rather the use of > GTK 1 as the default. Plenty of ports don't support OPTIONS, even > though they could, and many users ignore options by setting BATCH, but > it isn't a big deal because the defaults are ideal for most > situations. I think either defaulting to GTK 2 or just making vim a > console application would eliminate most of these complaints.
editors/vim-lite is console only.
pgpOCj7bxYWZn.pgp
Description: PGP signature