Re: midnight commander package fixes, opinions wanted

[ng0 <contact.ng0@cryptolab.net>]

On 17-03-01 17:01:23, ng0 wrote:
> On 17-03-01 16:58:41, ng0 wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I already fixed some of the open issues with our package of 'mc'.
> > 
> > I think people will expect features to just work and not being broken
> > (as they are right now).
> > My personal opinion ignored, how do you want to proceed? The vim way
> > where we have $package (basic, as small as it gets) and $package-full
> > (with all the features you can have enabled)?
> > 
> > I'd like to hear your opionion so that I can proceed fixing mc with
> > what we agreed on.
> > 
> 
> And also your opinion, I don't know what an opionion is but it sounds
> like opium combined with onion and I don't want that.
> 

For the lack of reaction for a long time, due to whatever reasons, I
will simply propose that we go the way of vim and vim-full.

'mc-full' will have many more dependencies than our current 'mc' and
should in the end be fully functional, while 'mc' will still complain
about missing features. The description of mc-full shall reflect that
you get full functionality with this application variant.

Anyone who wants this, feel free to pick it up and fix the related bug.