On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:42:04 +
RW wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:00:39 -0500
> Chris Brennan wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Giorgos Keramidas
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sorry that you had to install software that you don't really
> > > need and I can help you clean up by savi
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 22:19:02 +0100
Tony Maserati wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency to vim?
> And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover after installing
> X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
I guess the next time
On 09/01/2011 22:19, Tony Maserati wrote:
Hi,
I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency to vim?
And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover after installing
X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
Thanks.
Quoth Giorgos Keramidas on Monday, 10 January 2011:
>
> Maybe because gvim is really *much* nicer than plain console-based vim
> sessions.
>
How can that be the case, when gvim is an X11 program?
I've used both -- give me good old console-based vim any day.
--
Sterling (Chip) Camden| sterl
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:00:39 -0500
Chris Brennan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Giorgos Keramidas
> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry that you had to install software that you don't really
> > need and I can help you clean up by saving your installed ports as
> > 'binary packages' and re-install
Quoth Chris Brennan on Monday, 10 January 2011:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Giorgos Keramidas
> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry that you had to install software that you don't really need
> > and I can help you clean up by saving your installed ports as 'binary
> > packages' and re-installing just
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> I'm sorry that you had to install software that you don't really need
> and I can help you clean up by saving your installed ports as 'binary
> packages' and re-installing just the bits that you _really_ want to have
> around. Other than
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:02:35 -0500, Ed Smith
wrote:
> This seems bizarre. Logically, it would seem better to do a split like
> vim (bare vim - what you would expect) and xvim (vim with X11) similar
> to how emacs does emacs/xemacs.
XEmacs[1] is not 'Emacs with X11 support', but a very different
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:43:13 +0100
Tony Maserati wrote:
> I hear that - but if I want gvim I'll install gvim. What it's doing
> here is installing something I didn't ask for, well actually, it's
> fooling me into giving me something I don't need.
It's not as if gvim is something separate. gvim i
On 10/01/11 14:02, Ed Smith wrote:
> This seems bizarre. Logically, it would seem better to do a split like
> vim (bare vim - what you would expect) and xvim (vim with X11) similar
> to how emacs does emacs/xemacs.
Totally different thing. The emacs port install GNU Emacs; the xemacs
port instal
> I hear that - but if I want gvim I'll install gvim. What it's doing here is
> installing something I didn't ask for, well actually, it's fooling me into
> giving me something I don't need.
or you could just use the original vi that comes with the base system if you
just want a console editor.
On Monday 10 January 2011 15:02:35 Ed Smith wrote:
> This seems bizarre. Logically, it would seem better to do a split like
> vim (bare vim - what you would expect) and xvim (vim with X11) similar
> to how emacs does emacs/xemacs.
Er, no. xemacs is a fork of emacs. emacs has X-related dependencie
This seems bizarre. Logically, it would seem better to do a split like
vim (bare vim - what you would expect) and xvim (vim with X11) similar
to how emacs does emacs/xemacs.
On 1/10/2011 4:06 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 22:19:02 +0100, Tony Maserati wrote:
Hi,
I'm just
I hear that - but if I want gvim I'll install gvim. What it's doing here is
installing something I didn't ask for, well actually, it's fooling me into
giving me something I don't need.
Thanks.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Giorgos Keramidas <
keram...@ceid.upatras.gr> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:43:13 +0100, Tony Maserati wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Giorgos Keramidas
>wrote:
>>On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 22:19:02 +0100, Tony Maserati wrote:
>>> I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency
>>> to vim? And then making a vim-lite port (
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 22:19:02 +0100, Tony Maserati wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency
> to vim? And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover
> after installing X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
Maybe because gvim is
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Tony Maserati wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency to
> vim?
> And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover after
> installing
> X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
>
It's because of gV
Hi,
I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency to vim?
And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover after installing
X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
Thanks.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org ma
18 matches
Mail list logo
