Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:10:55 +0000 From: Thomas Hurst <tom.hurst@clara.net> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> Cc: David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should we keep the vim5 port? Message-ID: <20011107171055.C20308@sploo> In-Reply-To: <20011107175751.B8623@straylight.oblivion.bg>; from roam@ringlet.net on Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 05:57:51PM %2B0200 References: <20011107074751.A93028@dragon.nuxi.com> <20011107175751.B8623@straylight.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Peter Pentchev (roam@ringlet.net) wrote: > On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 07:47:51AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > Now that Vim 6.0 is out (with most .0 bug fixes); do we still need > > the vim5 port? > > I personally think we should keep it a bit longer, for fools like > myself who are wary of bloat and hidden bugs in the new versions :) I'm inclined to agree - even though I use vim6 - especially when installing the vim 6 port involves downloading almost 100 patches. ATM it doesn't look like this is going to change for at least another month. I'm inclined to ask the maintainer to keep the patches together so instead of 100 seperate files, have 10 bigger patches/tarballs/whatever. The extra bandwidth's probably going to be offset by the reduced latency (and maybe gzipping) anyway. And can I ask why patch 12 (any maybe a few others) was missed? As I recall that was for a crash bug with the polish translation - are they banned from using FreeBSD? :) -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - freaky@aagh.net - http://www.aagh.net/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011107171055.C20308>