Re: [arch-dev-public] [arch-general] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Paul Gideon Dann <pdgiddie@gmail.com>wrote:
On Thursday 24 Jan 2013 11:05:22 Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
+1 to drop vi. I cannot imagine why someone would want to use this crap ...
We already have nano in [core], so I think that vim could stay in [extra] (do we really need 2 text editors in [core] ?).
Vi is the standard UNIX text-editor. Many admins rely on the fact that vi is available everywhere. It really should be in core.
Also, I know you might be referring to "plain vi", which is a completely different beast to Vim, but the latter (which provides "vi" too) has a *huge* userbase. Calling it crap is just bizarre...
Paul
Incorrect -- ed is the standard unix editor. http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.html More seriously, POSIX says vi is optional for us: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/vi.html Please remember that dropping it from [core] makes it in no way any less available. I've no problems with moving vi as long as it doesn't disappear from the install media. It's useful to have around long enough until you can pacman -S vim.
Am 24.01.2013 17:35, schrieb Dave Reisner:
More seriously, POSIX says vi is optional for us:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/vi.html
Please remember that dropping it from [core] makes it in no way any less available.
I've no problems with moving vi as long as it doesn't disappear from the install media. It's useful to have around long enough until you can pacman -S vim.
If vi is removed from base/core we need to make sure that we don't break other packages. E.g. some programs use vi as default or fallback to it if EDITOR is not defined. E.g. visudo, crontab etc. We once had vim as our vi implementation so I don't see any reason to repeat history here. I don't object against keeping vi on the install media. But putting vim on there is too much and really not needed. So -1 on that idea (see thread on arch-releng) -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
On 26/01/13 00:18, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Am 24.01.2013 17:35, schrieb Dave Reisner:
More seriously, POSIX says vi is optional for us:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/vi.html
Please remember that dropping it from [core] makes it in no way any less available.
I've no problems with moving vi as long as it doesn't disappear from the install media. It's useful to have around long enough until you can pacman -S vim.
If vi is removed from base/core we need to make sure that we don't break other packages. E.g. some programs use vi as default or fallback to it if EDITOR is not defined. E.g. visudo, crontab etc.
Sure, we would need to dd some optdepends.
We once had vim as our vi implementation so I don't see any reason to repeat history here.
I took the history as the vi/vim/gvim all from various builds of vim did not work and we wanted to build from a split package and gvim needs to be in [extra] so there went vi. Has anyone ever been particularly satisfied with the vi in [core]? And it is not particularly maintained. There was a bug opened for about a year with a patch that got added last bug day. And the fact it needs three patches shows upstream is slow. I just checked and the last release was 24 Mar 2005. The point about the install iso increasing is size is valid... but then what proportion of people use it to install both an i686 and an x86_64 install? Allan
participants (3)
-
Allan McRae
-
Dave Reisner
-
Pierre Schmitz