[arch-dev-public] status of vi/vim in testing

Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool at gmail.com
Thu Jun 18 12:50:42 EDT 2009

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Aaron Griffin<aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Tobias Kieslich<tobias at justdreams.de> 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...

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list