On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 02:46:55PM -0500, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 06:19:50PM +0000, James Vega wrote:
> > + * Move vimtutor from vim-runtime to vim-common to match vim-common's
> > + package description.
>
> I don't think this is a good reason.
Ok.
> I mean: as I've already commented I'm not against putting vimtutor back
> in vim-common, but motivating it as "since vim-common's description says
> so" is really pointless.
>
> So, if you think vimtutor belongs to vim-common fine, put it there, but
> please explain (to us and in the changelog) why you think it belongs
> there.
Well, the original reason you mentioned it was moved out of vim-common
was because you thought vim-common was Arch: all. This isn't the case
now, so why not go back to how it used to be? Alternatively, xxd could
be moved to vim-runtime (along with its manpage and vimtutor's manpage),
although neither vimtutor nor xxd seem like 'runtime' files. Also,
vim-common is the only package that's guaranteed to be installed with
any vim variant so you'll always have the tutor available.
> Beside that, of course thanks for the work behind this :)
You're welcome. :)
James
--
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
|
