vimrc recommendation

Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas a.hatzim at gmail.com
Wed Apr 1 18:12:32 PDT 2009


On Wed, Apr 01, at 04:50 Archaic wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 09:22:47PM +0300, Agathoklis D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
> > 
> > Actually Tony answered me, that the most
> > sane solution is to source mswin.vim which offers a more nice environment.
> 
> Was he referring to vim on linux or vim on windows?

Do I really am so good in lies? :)

No, as Spencer already said (sorry Spencer that I've used you to
recommend a ms windows environment), the usual encouragement (for a
beginner) in the Vim developer group, is to source the vimrc_example.vim,
and then slowly to build upon that sample. It provides sane defaults except
perhaps the "Q" mapping.

Actually we've had a discussion some years ago, when there was an active
development, where I proposed to remove the vimrc page from BLFS and
merge that stuff to Vim's BLFS page instead (under the configuration section).
In any case, a dedicated page for configuring an editor, when there is already
a page in LFS and another page in BLFS, it just looks too much to me. And
especially (if you have a brief look to that page) if you consider the
fact, that it doesn't really offers an enhancement as it claims.
There are better sources around the net or in the vim extended help system
which can be used for that purpose. I just don't think it's our business.

So I think that your proposal it can help us to remove that page, if anyone
cares enough to do it. Honestly, the whole matter, it doesn't look so 
exciting when there open issues like DESTDIR enhancement and LSB/FHS
compliance.

> Archaic

Regards and sorry again from Spencer (I want to believe he suspected
the obvious lie).
Ag.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list