Le 10 février 2011 10:24:18, Ionuț Bîru a écrit :
On 02/10/2011 04:22 PM, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
Le 10 février 2011 02:51:26, Gaetan Bisson a écrit :
[2011-02-09 11:23:53 -0500] Stéphane Gaudreault:
4) A compact version of vim
Since it is both maintained upstream and featureful, it seems like the most reasonable choice to me. And I personally think that the few additional 100KB compared to other vi's is worth it.
I received a couple of emails from users that wanted to express their preference for a vim-based vi.
* May need a duplicate PKGBUILD as vim is in [extra] while vi is in [core]
Would you still name that package "vi" and prevent it from conflicting with the vim of [extra]? Or something like "vim-tiny" that would conflict and provide vim?
I do not have a strong opinion on this, but the first choice (name that package "vi" and prevent it from conflicting with the vim of [extra]) is probably simpler as the new vim-based vi will be a drop-in replacement of the old vi pkg.
Stéphane
we did had vi being a stripped vim package in the past. We got rid of it because upstream vim started to not helping arch users because "it was broken". That impression was given by our users who didn't understand that python and other crap that vim support is in vim package and not in vi.
This is a good point. Maybe that confusion came from the name of the package/executable (vi). In Ubuntu for example there is no package called "vi" afaik. In the vim-tiny package, the main executable is /usr/bin/vim.tiny and it has it's own configuration file in /etc/vim/vimrc.tiny. I assume that way there is no confusion between the full vim and the compact one.
now the same situation is now. Some users don't understand that vi is nvi and what they want is in vim.
vi is not nvi, it is the Traditional Vi :) Stéphane