The vim port needs a refresh

[John Marino]

On 5/25/2013 13:24, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 25 May 2013 11:54, Niclas Zeising<zeising+freebsd at daemonic.se>  wrote:
>> On 05/25/13 10:50, Chris Rees wrote:
>>>
>>> Alternatively, perhaps we need an editors/vim-options port????
>>
>> Just for the record, editors/vim was (and shells/bash) was converted to
>> optionsNG not too long ago.
>
> Ah, that's at least some good news.  I notice that it was on yet
> another maintainer timeout, so that criticism stands.
>
> It appears that David is no longer interested.

FWIW, the default on the vim port have taken the dports users by 
surprise.  I've gotten several complaints about the boatload of ports 
that get sucked in (and the amount of bandwidth it requires) by vim. 
They didn't know vim-lite existed.

I agree the default should be "light" and the kitchen sink version 
should be explicitly requested (if two ports are indeed needed for 
pre-built binary reasons).

John