On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 09:48 -0500, James Vega wrote: > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 12:53:47AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > It seems a shame to have broken every single vim addon rather than > > simply providing a new directory tree for sourcing addons which *are* > > problematic. Most addons do not get in the users way and are entirely > > safe to have enabled when the package is installed. > > The issue of problematic addons was just one of the reasons for having > addons not automatically enabled. The other big reason was that > automatically enabling every Vim addon which is installed isn't friendly > to multi-user systems. Addons should be available for the users but > enabled on a per-user basis (or system-wide by the admin if she so > chooses).
I don't see why enabling every vim addon (that isn't individually problematic) is unfriendly. 'bzr' plugins are all enabled system wide when installed via Debian packages, and that appears to work just fine. Can you expand on 'isn't friendly' - its not at all obvious, and I did read the vim packaging policy manual closely before starting this discussion about the bug. AFAICT its roughly equivalent to 'automatically making .so's available isn't very friendly to multi-user systems' (which is so obviously bogus noone would challenge it), but somehow vim addons are meant to be different. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
