присланное в 09:46:30 25 сентября 2010, Суббота,
отправитель Tom Link:
> I personally too prefer github repositories though. There are several
> plugins that make life with plugins distributed this way easier: the
> aforementioned pathogen, vimpluginloader by ZyX (that AFAIK integrates
> with Marc's vim-addon-manager), (shameless plug) my own tplugin, and
> maybe others.
Sorry, but my vimpluginloader is a library for developers. It does not fetch
anything neither itself nor with vim-addon-manager, but is able to source
runtime dependencies when they are required (that is why it is pluginloader).
The prefered form of installing is vim-addon-manager, package on vim.org
contains all dependencies bundled in one tar and so you will have to resolve
conflicts every time you will try to install two different my plugins from
vim.org.
Текст сообщения:
> > That's it, I'd like to know the reasons behind so much opposition against
> > plugins being released as vimball archives.
>
> You cannot (or could not) include binary files like images. In past
> discussions I once got the impression that the criticism of vimballs
> wasn't so much about vimballs but about the fact that many vimballs
> are distributed gz-compressed, which windows users cannot deal with
> without the installation of an additional app.
>
> I personally too prefer github repositories though. There are several
> plugins that make life with plugins distributed this way easier: the
> aforementioned pathogen, vimpluginloader by ZyX (that AFAIK integrates
> with Marc's vim-addon-manager), (shameless plug) my own tplugin, and
> maybe others.
>
> Regards
> Tom
No comments:
Post a Comment