The vim port needs a refresh

[Jeremy Messenger]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 28 May 2013 06:08, "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz.freebsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Putting BATCH=yes in your environment is entirely up to you, but forcing
> every user of the ports tree to learn a new way of dealing with certain
> ports because "They're mine and they're special" is absolutely wrong.

Actually, it's not wrong when OPTIONS has bugs.

> If you don't like OPTIONS, fix them,

I did by BATCH=yes. ;-)

> but please don't labour under the
> misapprehension that users are happy to have an inconsistent ports tree and
> unpredictable ports tree on the whim of a few maverick developers.

Fix the OPTIONS first and I will accept it in my ports. Pretty simple.
Since I don't like OPTIONS, so I am not required to fix it. If you do
really want OPTIONS to be added in my port then please fix it.

Although, I have lost in track of which bugs have been fixed in
OPTIONS. I know one important bug is:

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2013-April/083035.html

As same as with the LICENSE. I will not add in my ports until he
writes document of it. But I will accept the patch of it though. Well,
again, I might be out of date but I seem still can't find it in the
porter handbook as today.

> Chris


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