On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:35 PM, dave reisner <d...@falconindy.com> wrote: > I hate to do this, but I have to play devil's advocate here. This is > _exactly_ what's done for the vim/gvim package. The build directory is > _literally_ copied and the same package is built twice with extra options. > Why is it okay there but not here? > > /me dodges incoming flames > > dave >
No, no, you have an excellent point there. The vim/gvim split is an strong example, and quite frankly, I don't see where a problem arises in splitting the package.