Just wanted to install vim - had to spend entire day building X11
Tony Maserati
I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency to vim?
And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover after installing
X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"
Chris Brennan
> Hi,
>
> I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency to
> vim?
> And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover after
> installing
> X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
>
It's because of gVIM .... throw WITHOUT_X11=true into /etc/make.conf next
time :D
hth/c-
Giorgos Keramidas
> Hi,
>
> I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency
> to vim? And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover
> after installing X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
Maybe because gvim is really *much* nicer than plain console-based vim
sessions.
The vim-lite port exists for those cases when you really want to install
just plain good ol' vim without all the bells and whistles. You can also
install editors/vim with WITHOUT_X11='true' to avoid the pulling of all
this X11 stuff.
Giorgos Keramidas
>On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Giorgos Keramidas <kera...@ceid.upatras.gr> wrote:
>>On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 22:19:02 +0100, Tony Maserati <ablet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency
>>> to vim? And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover
>>> after installing X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
>>
>> Maybe because gvim is really *much* nicer than plain console-based vim
>> sessions.
>>
>> The vim-lite port exists for those cases when you really want to install
>> just plain good ol' vim without all the bells and whistles. You can also
>> install editors/vim with WITHOUT_X11='true' to avoid the pulling of all
>> this X11 stuff.
>
> here is installing something I didn't ask for, well actually, it's
> fooling me into giving me something I don't need.
The tricky bit is that there's no gvim port. There are two choices one
can make when porting software like this:
* Add a default port that installs the 'full experience', and a second
meta-port that has options suitable for minimalists.
* Add a default port that is minimal, and a meta-port that can pull in
all the necessary bits for the full-blown user experience.
I agree that it's confusing to remember which port has chosen which
option, but there isn't much a porter (e.g. obrien in this case) can do
to satisfy *both* groups of users.
I'm sorry that you had to install software that you don't really need
and I can help you clean up by saving your installed ports as 'binary
packages' and re-installing just the bits that you _really_ want to have
around. Other than that, I don't know if there's any way to change the
status quo of the vim ports to be able to satisfy automatically both
types of user needs.
Tony Maserati
installing something I didn't ask for, well actually, it's fooling me into
giving me something I don't need.
Thanks.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Giorgos Keramidas <
kera...@ceid.upatras.gr> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 22:19:02 +0100, Tony Maserati <ablet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency
> > to vim? And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover
> > after installing X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
>
> Maybe because gvim is really *much* nicer than plain console-based vim
> sessions.
>
> The vim-lite port exists for those cases when you really want to install
> just plain good ol' vim without all the bells and whistles. You can also
> install editors/vim with WITHOUT_X11='true' to avoid the pulling of all
> this X11 stuff.
>
>
Ed Smith
vim (bare vim - what you would expect) and xvim (vim with X11) similar
to how emacs does emacs/xemacs.
Jonathan McKeown
> This seems bizarre. Logically, it would seem better to do a split like
> vim (bare vim - what you would expect) and xvim (vim with X11) similar
> to how emacs does emacs/xemacs.
Er, no. xemacs is a fork of emacs. emacs has X-related dependencies unless you
make it WITHOUT_X11.
Jonathan
Jamie Paul Griffin
> installing something I didn't ask for, well actually, it's fooling me into
> giving me something I don't need.
jamie
Firas Kraiem
> This seems bizarre. Logically, it would seem better to do a split like
> vim (bare vim - what you would expect) and xvim (vim with X11) similar
> to how emacs does emacs/xemacs.
Totally different thing. The emacs port install GNU Emacs; the xemacs
port installs XEmacs. They are completely separate projects. Vim, on
the other hand, is one project, and the GUI is part of it. There is no
such thing as "xvim". (Also I believe the emacs port installs GNU Emacs
*with a GUI*, the no-GUI version is at emacs-nox11).
Firas
>
> On 1/10/2011 4:06 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 22:19:02 +0100, Tony
>> Maserati<ablet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency
>>> to vim? And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover
>>> after installing X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
>> Maybe because gvim is really *much* nicer than plain console-based vim
>> sessions.
>>
>> The vim-lite port exists for those cases when you really want to install
>> just plain good ol' vim without all the bells and whistles. You can also
>> install editors/vim with WITHOUT_X11='true' to avoid the pulling of all
>> this X11 stuff.
>>
RW
> I hear that - but if I want gvim I'll install gvim. What it's doing
> here is installing something I didn't ask for, well actually, it's
> fooling me into giving me something I don't need.
It's not as if gvim is something separate. gvim is just a symlink to
vim that gets installed when vim is built with GUI support.
It seems a sensible arrangement; desktops already have Xorg,
servers that have no need of it should have WITHOUT_X11 set globally.
Giorgos Keramidas
> This seems bizarre. Logically, it would seem better to do a split like
> vim (bare vim - what you would expect) and xvim (vim with X11) similar
> to how emacs does emacs/xemacs.
XEmacs[1] is not 'Emacs with X11 support', but a very different editor.
The main GNU Emacs port (editors/emacs) does include support for X11,
and it's actually a lot more pleasant to use under X window.
Its name is certainly slightly confusing now that people have gotten
accustomed to all the 'foo' vs. 'xfoo' ports, but the XEmacs editor has
been around for a *long* time, so let's not confuse it for something
very different from what it is :)
Chris Brennan
> I'm sorry that you had to install software that you don't really need
> and I can help you clean up by saving your installed ports as 'binary
> packages' and re-installing just the bits that you _really_ want to have
> around. Other than that, I don't know if there's any way to change the
> status quo of the vim ports to be able to satisfy automatically both
> types of user needs.
>
>
My not a 'make config' target that asks weather we want vim/gvim/xvim (if X
isn't installed?)
C-
Chip Camden
Yes! +1
And while you're at it, add the options for Ruby/Perl/Python support,
instead of having to add WITH_RUBY=yes, etc. to make.conf.
--
Sterling (Chip) Camden | ster...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F
http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipsquips.com | http://chipstips.com
RW
Chris Brennan <xa...@xaerolimit.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Giorgos Keramidas
> <kera...@freebsd.org>wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry that you had to install software that you don't really
> > need and I can help you clean up by saving your installed ports as
> > 'binary packages' and re-installing just the bits that you _really_
> > want to have around. Other than that, I don't know if there's any
> > way to change the status quo of the vim ports to be able to satisfy
> > automatically both types of user needs.
> >
> >
> My not a 'make config' target that asks weather we want vim/gvim/xvim
> (if X isn't installed?)
There's already a slave port
Chip Camden
>
> Maybe because gvim is really *much* nicer than plain console-based vim
> sessions.
>
I've used both -- give me good old console-based vim any day.
David Demelier
> Hi,
>
> I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency to vim?
> And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover after installing
> X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"
You must wait that the vim maintainer want to switch to the OPTIONS
framework. Actually he does not want to do it. He prefers to be alone to
use the old KNOB system just to do `not like all other people`.
So because you can't make a convenient `make config` you need to read
the makefile or installing ports-mgmt/lsknobs, run lsknobs in the
current port path and then set every knob you want in /etc/make.conf
But be careful ! Because make.conf is used by every port you should use
ports-mgmt/portconf to write only vim knob in /usr/local/etc/ports.conf
like :
editors/vim: WITHOUT_X11.
Isn't that convenient? :-)
--
David Demelier
Andreas Rudisch
> Hi,
>
> I'm just curious - what's the point of including X11 as a dependency to vim?
> And then making a vim-lite port (which you usually discover after installing
> X11). How about making it vim and vim-x11 instead?
I guess the next time you should simply install: /usr/ports/editors/vim-lite/
Andreas.
--
GnuPG key : 0x2A573565 | http://www.gnupg.org/howtos/de/
Fingerprint: 925D 2089 0BF9 8DE5 9166 33BB F0FD CD37 2A57 3565
RW
RW <rwmai...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:00:39 -0500
> Chris Brennan <xa...@xaerolimit.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Giorgos Keramidas
> > <kera...@freebsd.org>wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sorry that you had to install software that you don't really
> > > need and I can help you clean up by saving your installed ports as
> > > 'binary packages' and re-installing just the bits that you
> > > _really_ want to have around. Other than that, I don't know if
> > > there's any way to change the status quo of the vim ports to be
> > > able to satisfy automatically both types of user needs.
> > >
> > >
> > My not a 'make config' target that asks weather we want
> > vim/gvim/xvim (if X isn't installed?)
>
> There's already a slave port
FWIW I just had a look and for me there is practically no
difference. The additional direct dependencies are commonplace
desktop dependency ports, and the vim binary shrinks from 1.7MB to
1.4MB, just 298kB.