Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 23:05:27 +0400 > dev-ran...@mail.ru wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 07:53:22PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > It's there because if you break your X you probably want a usable > > > editor to help you fix it. > > > > vim, compiled with "vim-with-x" works correctly when X is broken. It > > doesn't enable X11-based UI, like flag "X" suggests. It just enables > > optional connection to x-server to use its clipboard, and vim still > > works if that connection fails. > > It does not, however, work if your X libraries are broken.
I certainly agree with you that removing the linkage to a handful of X libraries makes vim more robust if those particular libraries fail. However even with USE="-vim-with-x", there are a number of other libraries that, if broken, will still render vim useless, such as ncurses, perl, python, and ruby. I suspect if one really wants a fail-proof editor, one would either be building vim with USE="minimal" which will ignore the 'vim-with-x' or 'X' USE flag (regardless of what we call it) and also ignore any perl/python/ruby libraries, or one would want something more trim, like busybox vi. Or even better yet, busybox vi with USE="static". Of course changing the USE flag name to 'X' would still let users decide to *not* link their app-editors/vim against any X libraries via per-package USE flags. The main difference in changing the name from 'vim-with-x' to 'X' is that instead of enforcing a default behaviour of "Vim will not link against X unless explicitly told to do so", we will be enforcing a policy of "Vim will link against X when USE='X'". I suppose this is a bit like a transition from an opt-in policy to an opt-out policy, with the caveat that by enabling USE=X globally, a user has already declared their intent: opt-in to linking against X in all packages where there is a choice to do so. -- Jim Ramsay Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm/vim)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
