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

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

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.

On 11 February 2011 00:59, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

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].

I am in full agreement.

On 11/02/11 06:28, Ray Rashif wrote:

On 11 February 2011 00:59, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

...

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].

I am in full agreement.

My last Arch install was the first and only time I have ever used nano. And that was only because I could not use the piece of crap that is our current vi package (I'm not vim guru but I usually manage in vim just fine). Is the current vi package actually usable for an install by someone more familiar with it? Allan