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

[hollunder at gmx.at]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:32:45 +0100
Zé Ninguém <meugninez at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Isn't it possible to name the things as they are called and simply set
up an alias or something when it hurts to type one more letter?