[arch-general] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])

[Greg Bouzakis]

Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:

> Le 2013-01-24 07:21, Allan McRae a écrit :
>> On 24/01/13 22:08, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
>>> === [core] ===
>>>
>>> For [core], there are two uneeded orphans, that also aren't make
>>> dependencies for any other [core] packages:
>>>
>>> openldap
>>> vi
>>>
>>> If I may be so bold, maybe vim or another editor (still providing the
>>> "vi" command) could take over for the vi package?
>> I agree with just dumping vi and moving [vim] to core...  But we can not
>> put split packages across repos and gvim and deps are not going there so
>> that is a no...
> 
> Moving to another thread for clarity.
> 
> +1 to drop vi. I cannot imagine why someone would want to use this crap
> ...
> 
> We already have nano in [core], so I think that vim could stay in
> [extra] (do we really need 2 text editors in [core] ?).
> 

FWIW this is the original discussion which brought this crippled vi upon us
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13109 but more importantly 
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13239
Do vim and gvim really have to share the same PKGBUILD?
I would be in favour of having a proper modern vim implementation in core no 
matter what its name would be.
The only downside is that vim would need signoffs. I think that if a 
different PKGBUILD is used for gvim then gvim wouldn't need those as well.

Greg