Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])
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
On 24 January 2013 16:27, 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
What about stuff like visudo? Maybe make it an optdepend or something? -- Jason Steadman
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.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:35:29AM -0500, Dave Reisner wrote:
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.
This does raise the question of whether we should have nano in [core] in the first place. At least vi is referenced by POSIX. -- David J. Haines djhaines@gmx.com
participants (4)
-
Dave Reisner
-
David J. Haines
-
Jason Steadman
-
Paul Gideon Dann