Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new local USE var: vim-with-x

[William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>]

The problem is that if you build vim with USE=X, and X is not running,
vim will not start as it cannot see X (note that I am talking about
console vim running in a console with no X, not gvim.)  

This was apparently a bug in vim at one time, but even the bugfixed
console version can want X in some circumstances that are likely to
catch people out when can they least expect or afford it (e.g., X
failure: how do you edit XF86Config quickly if you have no X and
therefore no vim: has happened to me!).

To me, the question is whether to stick with a convention that is not
appropriate in this circumstance, or do a logical workaround that can
satisfactorily overcome this behaviour.

Can someone define why console vim needs X anyway, apart from the highly
critical trick of putting a title on the X window?


BillK

On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 02:28, Björn Lindström wrote:
> William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> [20030429 18:05]:
> > I agree this is fine in theory, but what I am trying to push is that
> > building vim with X is a *BAD* idea because if you lose X as happens
> > occasionally (see the forums for problems with the current XFree-4.3
> > upgrade), you can (and in my case it *HAS* happened), be left with a
> > system without a viable editor - workstation, server or whatever.
> 
> I don't get this. Where I sit, gvim launches vim if it can't connect to
> an X server.
-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list