From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10718 invoked by uid 1002); 29 Apr 2003 23:56:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 10359 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2003 23:56:24 -0000 From: William Kenworthy Reply-To: billk@iinet.net.au To: gentoo-dev List In-Reply-To: <20030429182847.GH18711@lucien.dreaming> References: <20030429001443.GA413@time> <20030429011644.GB18711@lucien.dreaming> <20030429033239.GB413@time> <200304290224.53881.novas007@gmx.net> <1051598177.1819.32.camel@bunyip.uwa.edu.au> <1620000.1051624615@[192.168.23.6]> <3EAE8AC3.8060603@home.se> <1250000.1051627788@[192.168.23.6]> <1051630278.19658.24.camel@chinstrap.penguins.homeunix.net> <1051632346.24684.213.camel@rattus.Localdomain> <20030429182847.GH18711@lucien.dreaming> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Organization: Message-Id: <1051660150.24674.1610.camel@rattus.Localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.3- Date: 30 Apr 2003 07:49:10 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new local USE var: vim-with-x X-Archives-Salt: 820a0009-63e5-480e-9464-8f7660deccc1 X-Archives-Hash: a38f792bc7e5beb1fcd7365cd1440146 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 [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 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list