vim languages

[wrobell]

On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 01:30:02PM +0200, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> Dnia wtorek, 7 sierpnia 2007, Pawel Golaszewski napisał:
> > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> > > > any comments?
> > >
> > > The basic packages should be 'low reqs' and 'high reqs' (which
> > > translates to -- no langs and all langs). Anything in between should be
> > > left to ppl directly interested.
> >
> > "All-or-nothing" isn't the best choice...
> > I think that there should be 3 possibilities:
> > - vim like in current packages we know. It would be nice to keep it.
> > - vim-tiny (or minimal) - for monks
> > - vim-full - for those who like all the bells and whistles
> 
> What's the difference between current vim and vim-full?

current vim shall not be "full". for very long period of time there were no
complaints because of vim "non-fullness" if i remember well :]

maybe everyone is on holidays now, but it seems that switching off
languages is ok for now. if somebody needs all of them, then... vim-full?

regards,

    wrobell <wrobell at pld-linux.org>