On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:21:17 -0500 Pedro A. López-Valencia <palopezv@null.net> wrote:

I agree with you Doug. The package is a stop gap measure as is. The issue at hand is that vi-vim-symlink has not been touched in 7 years and uses a fancy shell function that is as of this month it is apparently broken, see https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/vi-vim-symlink#comment-860963 I think my package is better precisely because it is a list of symlink creation commands. Simplicity over fancyness. That's why I've already asked that vi-vim-symlink be merged into my package instead.

I will be extremely happy to see my package dissappear when the maintainer of the vim/gvim packages in extra gets off  his high horse and acknowledges the needs of his users. But not before.

The link you provided is wrong. There's no CRLF, there's no actual problem. Nothing is broken. The other package should not be merged into yours, yours should be deleted as a duplicate. It's also not all that great quality wise anyway, with the serious misunderstandings of how depends, provides, conflicts, and replaces work.

El 20/04/2022 a las 8:41 a. m., Doug Newgard escribió:

...

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 10:52:32 +0000 notify--- via aur-requests <aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:

...

toropisco [1] filed a request to merge vi-vim-symlink [2] into vim-vi [3]:

vim-vi is a better maintained package that supports both vim and gvim and covers all possible invoking names that emulate original vi features.

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/toropisco/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/vi-vim-symlink/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/vim-vi/ It's symlinks, there's not much to maintain. The whole vim/gvim thing is ridiculous, as gvim provides vim, making the gvim specific package useless. Maintainer was told this, but refused to even attempt to understand. If there's links missing they can be added to the originial package instead of making a duplicate.