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

Caleb Cushing xenoterracide at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 14:00:37 EDT 2009

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Zé Ninguém<meugninez at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

there needs to be a 'vi' the package does not have to be named vi. as
far as package manager conflicts... I'd say just have vi symlink to
nvi by default and if people want they can symlink vi to vim or put an
alias in there shell config.

Caleb Cushing


More information about the arch-general mailing list