[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] status of vi/vim in testing

[Grigorios Bouzakis]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa at gmx.de> wrote:

> Am Mittwoch 17 Juni 2009 schrieb Allan McRae:
> > Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > just wondered, what is the status of vi/vim in testing, this one blocks
> > > archboot from moving to extra, is there any progress of moving it to
> > > extra/core?
> >
> > On this topic, both vi an vim are currently in base.  Is this a mistake?
> > I find the new (n)vi unusable and and removed it and make vi a symlink
> > to vim.  Although the current vim is bigger, I would not object to
> > removing vi and adding a symlink from vi to vim-normal...
> >
> > Allan
> It's a whole mess, which needs to be cleaned.
> First should be decided in which direction this should go.
> personally i hate this nvi, it's so restricted.
> greetings
> tpowa <tpowa at archlinux.org>


I was about to send an email to Tobias the other day but i could get my
script to work
so i removed the draft i had saved.
IMO this packaging scheme sucks for both vi and vim.
I was looking at the CRUX vim script and if a package like that can be
achieved IMO
its the best solution.
Current situation (in testing) vim depends only on perl (optdepend) so this
package might
as well be in [core] instead of [extra] . That means it would need signoffs
for it & gvim as well.
I would be in favour of building a vim package in [core] that includes both
a vi & vim binary,
like CRUX seems to do it. http://crux.nu/ports/crux-2.5/core/vim/Pkgfile
I just couldnt get my script to build so hadnt suggested it so far. I wonder
if thats possible.
The reasons the previous scheme changed was mainly because people complained
that vi isnt
really vi but vim, so this scenario would cover it
Sorry for interefering.

-- 
Greg