The vim port needs a refresh

[Jeremy Messenger]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Chris Rees <crees at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 24 May 2013 22:23, Kenta Suzumoto <kentas at hush.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all. The editors/vim port is currently a mess and needs some changes.
>>
>> - It fetches almost 700 patches from what seems like a dial-up connection in AUSTRALIA.
>>
>> You might as well be downloading a 1080p movie from a rock in the north pole, because that's about how fast it is.
>> This can be very easily avoided by putting all the patches into a single tarball and hosting it anywhere decent. I've
>> seen someone in ##freebsd on freenode handing out a tarball with all the patches many times, and everyone asks
>> "why isn't this the default? why is some random guy giving me distfiles?" etc. Seems like a no-brainer.
>>
>> - By default, it builds lots of gui stuff that certainly almost no one wants
>>
>> It almost seems like the vim-lite port should be renamed vim and the vim port should be renamed gvim. I had to
>> google to come up with this solution, because I can't even disable that stuff in "make config" (another problem!)
>>
>> .if ${.CURDIR}=="/usr/ports/editors/vim"
>> WITH_VIM_OPTIONS=yes
>> WITHOUT_X11=yes
>> .endif
>>
>> People shouldn't have to find this hack to be able to install vim normally (and no, telling them to use vim-lite isn't normal).
>> I'm surprised that none of these changes have been made yet. I've heard it's "because the maintainer won't listen to reason"
>> but I have no way to know if that's the case or not. I also heard bapt@ had an optionsNG patch that he wouldn't
>> integrate into the port for some reason. Please, let's get this stuff fixed once and for all. None of it requires a large amount
>> of work on anyone's part.
>
> I'm very sad to talk of a fellow developer like this, but I'm afraid
> the maintainer of vim is a contrarian who thinks he knows better than
> everyone else on the matter.
>
> For years, people have been begging him to get over his fear of
> OPTIONS, and he sits in the way of progress against almost everyone's
> wishes.

FYI, the OPTIONS is not required to have. I agree with him pretty much
everything about the OPTIONS. I have refused to add OPTIONS in any of
my ports before I gave up a lot of them long time ago. All of his
thought of OPTIONS are very valid. The OPTIONS still has bugs.

BTW: I always have BATCH=yes in my make.conf, because I hate OPTIONS a lot.

> He has also impeded progress on the bash port, resulting in the
> ridiculous situation where we now have two bash ports, where one will
> do.  For historical reasons, people seem reluctant to confront him
> about this, and he ignores all attempts to reason about it.
>
> It's far beyond time to remove David O'Brien from MAINTAINER lines--
> he doesn't do the job properly anyway; several PRs he's timed out on
> for his ports:
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/177597
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/174965
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/175447
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/178462
>
> Last time I timed him out on a PR I was subjected to a tirade from
> him, with questionable justification, but I may process these too when
> I have time.
>
> Alternatively, perhaps we need an editors/vim-options port????
>
> Chris


--
mezz.freebsd at gmail.com - mezz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome at FreeBSD.org