[arch-dev-public] Vi package

[Pierre Schmitz]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:52:16 +0100, Jan de Groot wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 17:24 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> now the same situation is now. Some users don't understand that vi is
>> nvi and what they want is in vim.
> 
> I don't think we should go back to a fucked vim package with /etc/virc
> like we had it in the past. We switched from that to nvi, which fucked
> up files if they contained unicode stuff (it would just segfault in the
> middle of a save operation, leaving you with a broken file).
> After that, we decided to go for busybox, which works fairly well as vi,
> is maintained, but doesn't do anything that looks like vim.
> 
> IMHO vi is totally useless on most systems. I prefer to uninstall it and
> do ln -s vim /usr/bin/vi instead. Users who complain about vi being too
> limited should do that too.

I wonder the same. I cannot imagine why anybody would want to use vi.
Personally I would not mind if nano was the only interactive editor in
[core]. But keeping the current busybox vi is also fine.

-- 
Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre