editors/vim installs to /

[Rob Farmer]

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 16:24, Wesley Shields <wxs at 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 <wxs at 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.

-- 
Rob Farmer