[arch-general] reconfiguring vi to work like it did before the last update?

[Zé Ninguém]

2009/7/13 Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org>

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ed Jobs<oloringr at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday 13 July 2009 11:49, solsTiCe d'Hiver wrote:
> >> to the dev:
> >> why not rename vi package to nvi ?
> >
> > +1 to that
>
> Sounds like a good idea, especially since nvi _isn't_ vi in the strictest
> sense.
>

Neither was the previous vi, and the package was named vi.
I think there needs to exist a binary named vi in the system, for
POSIX compliance, but I am not shure.
So if there needs to be a package that provides it, there can't be several
packages providing it, or there will be conflicts, and one text editor
should not conflict with another. IMHO, naming that package vi only seems
natural.
AFAIK, there is no such thing as vi nowadays, or is there?

Regards.