[arch-dev-public] About the vim packages (Opinions needed)
shiningxc at gmail.com
Mon Oct 12 15:35:37 EDT 2009
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's a bit bold to state that gvim is for "serious developers". I use
> vim at home and at work for day to day development, and use gvim
> approximately 10% of the time (when I need to do something on a
> Windows VM, because cmd.exe sucks). On a Linux machine, I don't think
> I've actually started gvim in like 3 years.
vim is the only editor I use, for development and for everything else.
And I actually didn't even have gvim installed. I don't need gvim, I
don't need X support, I might need python support but usually I don't.
If it was up to me, I would enable python support, but I realize it's
difficult to make everyone happy so I don't care much.
> There's a middle-ground, however. We can do the download once, make a
> tarball of it, and stick it in ftp/other/ for ABS users to rebuild
> from. I believe this was proposed in a PKGBUILD Xavier emails around
> (a _mksrc function similar to libfetch). It doesn't have to use CVS,
> but if we provide a tarball somewhere and simply base the PKGBUILD off
> that, instead of doing complex bash gymnastics, we meet in the middle
I included the PKGBUILD for reference.
If we use tarball + patches, I am not sure whether we should use a
_mksrc function or try to go with the bash-package way.
In the latter case, we need to support the patch bundles. afaik the
original patches remain on ftp, but downloading 260 patches is slow.
Downloading 62 patches is better.
So it would be more complex than bash pkgbuild, but probably doable. I
can look into it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3236 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the arch-dev-public