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.
