On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:52:16 +0100, Jan de Groot wrote:
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 17:24 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
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.
now the same situation is now. Some users don't understand that vi is nvi and what they want is in vim.
I don't think we should go back to a fucked vim package with /etc/virc like we had it in the past. We switched from that to nvi, which fucked up files if they contained unicode stuff (it would just segfault in the middle of a save operation, leaving you with a broken file). After that, we decided to go for busybox, which works fairly well as vi, is maintained, but doesn't do anything that looks like vim.
IMHO vi is totally useless on most systems. I prefer to uninstall it and do ln -s vim /usr/bin/vi instead. Users who complain about vi being too limited should do that too.
I wonder the same. I cannot imagine why anybody would want to use vi. Personally I would not mind if nano was the only interactive editor in [core]. But keeping the current busybox vi is also fine. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre