[arch-dev-public] Vi package

[Stéphane Gaudreault]

Le 10 février 2011 10:24:18, Ionuț Bîru a écrit :
> On 02/10/2011 04:22 PM, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
> > Le 10 février 2011 02:51:26, Gaetan Bisson a écrit :
> >> [2011-02-09 11:23:53 -0500] Stéphane Gaudreault:
> >>> 4) A compact version of vim
> >> 
> >> Since it is both maintained upstream and featureful, it seems like the
> >> most reasonable choice to me. And I personally think that the few
> >> additional 100KB compared to other vi's is worth it.
> > 
> > I received a couple of emails from users that wanted to express their
> > preference for a vim-based vi.
> > 
> >>>     * May need a duplicate PKGBUILD as vim is in [extra] while vi is in
> >>>     [core]
> >> 
> >> Would you still name that package "vi" and prevent it from conflicting
> >> with the vim of [extra]? Or something like "vim-tiny" that would
> >> conflict and provide vim?
> > 
> > I do not have a strong opinion on this, but the first choice (name that
> > package "vi" and prevent it from conflicting with the vim of [extra]) is
> > probably simpler as the new vim-based vi will be a drop-in replacement
> > of the old vi pkg.
> > 
> > Stéphane
> 
> we did had vi being a stripped vim package in the past. We got rid of it
> because upstream vim started to not helping arch users because "it was
> broken". That impression was given by our users who didn't understand
> that python and other crap that vim support is in vim package and not in
> vi.

This is a good point. Maybe that confusion came from the name of the 
package/executable (vi). In Ubuntu for example there is no package called "vi" 
afaik. In the vim-tiny package, the main executable is /usr/bin/vim.tiny and 
it has it's own configuration file in /etc/vim/vimrc.tiny. I assume that way 
there is no confusion between the full vim and the compact one.

> 
> now the same situation is now. Some users don't understand that vi is
> nvi and what they want is in vim.

vi is not nvi, it is the Traditional Vi :)

Stéphane