18 Jan
2011
18 Jan
'11
3:14 a.m.
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 13:30 -0600, Brad Fanella wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:35 PM, dave reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
I hate to do this, but I have to play devil's advocate here. This is _exactly_ what's done for the vim/gvim package. The build directory is _literally_ copied and the same package is built twice with extra options. Why is it okay there but not here?
/me dodges incoming flames
dave
No, no, you have an excellent point there. The vim/gvim split is an strong example, and quite frankly, I don't see where a problem arises in splitting the package.
Perhaps vim has a much larger user base?