Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...

Hi just wondered, what is the status of vi/vim in testing, this one blocks archboot from moving to extra, is there any progress of moving it to extra/core?

On this topic, both vi an vim are currently in base. Is this a mistake? I find the new (n)vi unusable and and removed it and make vi a symlink to vim. Although the current vim is bigger, I would not object to removing vi and adding a symlink from vi to vim-normal...

Allan It's a whole mess, which needs to be cleaned. First should be decided in which direction this should go.

Am Mittwoch 17 Juni 2009 schrieb Allan McRae: personally i hate this nvi, it's so restricted. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org

Hiya, my main gripe with nvi is the not missing bad badly broken support for unicode stuff. I didn't have time to check out how and if other distros deal with it. However I'm all for keeping vim out of core. about the renaming, I couldn't care less. But the main point is that LSB expects a vi. A binary name that is. And that's why I'm perfectly fine with keeping the package name. Nvi by default installes itself as vi. I have a few more changes for vim/gvim which I will get up this week. -T On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

On Wednesday 17 June 2009 14:25:07 Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...

It's a whole mess, which needs to be cleaned. First should be decided in which direction this should go. personally i hate this nvi, it's so restricted.

Why don't we remove the vi package from core, put the "real" vim into extra, rename vi from testing to what it actually is: nvi.

--

Pierre Schmitz

Clemens-August-Straße 76 53115 Bonn

Telefon 0228 9716608 Mobil 0160 95269831 Jabber pierre@jabber.archlinux.de WWW http://www.archlinux.de

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Tobias Kieslich wrote:

...

Hiya,

       my main gripe with nvi is the not missing bad badly broken support for unicode stuff. I didn't have time to check out how and if other distros deal with it. However I'm all for keeping vim out of core. about the renaming, I couldn't care less. But the main point is that LSB expects a vi. A binary name that is. And that's why I'm perfectly fine with keeping the package name. Nvi by default installes itself as vi.

I have a few more changes for vim/gvim which I will get up this week.

So all this vi/vim/gvim hassle is really because we want to save some package size and share data between packages.

Why not: vi: minimal vim build vim: replaces=(vi) provides=(vi) gvim: replaces=(vi vim) provides=(vi vim)

I think you meant conflicts instead of replaces.

This rigmarole is getting to be a huge headache - especially considering that gvim in testing needs a rebuild due to ruby still...

It's also that we don't wanna stall vim/gvim updates that shall wait for vi in testing. Admittedly the conflict/provides trick might slice it but it seems awkward. I will try to apply the patches that Ubuntu has on nvi and see if that helps. On a related note Aaron, identica told me you fixed some stuff in pythoncomplete.vim, did ypou make a release? -T Quoting Aaron Griffin :

...

...

So all this vi/vim/gvim hassle is really because we want to save some package size and share data between packages.

Why not: vi: minimal vim build vim: replaces=(vi) provides=(vi) gvim: replaces=(vi vim) provides=(vi vim)

I think you meant conflicts instead of replaces.

Aye, sorry - the actual behavior (in my head) is that installing one of them "replaces" the others, so I mistyped it.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:27 PM, wrote:

...

It's also that we don't wanna stall vim/gvim updates that shall wait for vi in testing. Admittedly the conflict/provides trick might slice it but it seems awkward. I will try to apply the patches that Ubuntu has on  nvi and see if that helps.

On a related note Aaron, identica told me you fixed some stuff in pythoncomplete.vim, did ypou make a release?

Nope, not yet. I have two more bugs I want to kill before the next release, but considering that may take some time, maybe I will release it

0.9 is released now: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1542