From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15082 invoked by uid 1002); 30 Apr 2003 00:53:58 -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 15418 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2003 00:53:58 -0000 From: William Kenworthy Reply-To: billk@iinet.net.au To: Peter Fein Cc: gentoo-dev List In-Reply-To: <20030429192914.3a70ea62.pfein@pobox.com> 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> <1051660150.24674.1610.camel@rattus.Localdomain> <20030429192914.3a70ea62.pfein@pobox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1051663662.24684.1757.camel@rattus.Localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.3- Date: 30 Apr 2003 08:47:42 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new local USE var: vim-with-x X-Archives-Salt: 9999dc11-58a6-4996-88fa-cd6ff3d96e17 X-Archives-Hash: 59529c28184ccc5304406ca8547113cc On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 08:29, Peter Fein wrote: > On 30 Apr 2003 07:49:10 +0800 > William Kenworthy wrote: > This is just a silly reason already - did you nuke nano or something? Yes, since corrected! > From vim --help: > > -X Do not connect to X server > > Users who can't figure out to try --help are probably going to generate line noise by trying to use vi in the first place. ;) > whoops, I didnt read help, should have realised something like this might be present > > 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. > > While we can continue the vim-with-x vs. X battle royale, I: > > a) think X is better > b) really don't care > c) withdraw any ill-will toward developers who avoid -dev > d) was seriously hoping this would turn in to a vi vs. emacs war > > Perhaps someone should set up a forum poll? ;) > > > Can someone define why console vim needs X anyway, apart from the highly > > critical trick of putting a title on the X window? > > Causing grief to those who bork their XF86Config? ;) > > (All flames meant in the friendliest spirit.) -- William Kenworthy -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list