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

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Thu Jun 18 12:56:09 EDT 2009

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Eric Bélanger<snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

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

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list