On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 13:30 -0600, Brad Fanella wrote: > 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.
Perhaps vim has a much larger user base?
