[aur-general] Arch's Vim Failings & Solution Suggestions
tobias at justdreams.de
Fri Mar 27 16:39:37 EDT 2009
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Kessia 'even' Pinheiro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Tobias Kieslich <tobias at justdreams.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I was reaaly busy lately so I wasn't able to push tha changes I made
> > locally.
> > I got rid of gvimrc in etc, I still wonder thought why they would
> > have such a file upstream. Also virc is gone. Since we won't ship a vim
> > based vi package anymore.
> Why not?
becuase it is obviously missleading and a fair sourcve of confusion.
> > vi will be besad on nvi. that has lot's of advantages:
> > - smaller for the iso
> > - no waiting on testing that stalls vim and gvim
> > - vi and vim are separated
> Why base vi on nvi? nvi aren't updated (on website) since 4/14/01. The
> last version of vi was based on vim and its a bit different for
> compiling options only. I think this is fine for most of users. I
> think in vi like a vim without X improvements, so, why not still with
> vi based on vim? Maybe you can provide nvi in a different package,
> which can provide vi, i dont know.
We will base that on the devel version from 2007, whic is stable and
works fine. Many other distros do the same. The advantages are listed
above and there is a long thread on the bugtracker. The main advantage
is that nvi is samller and as such much better suited for the base/core
stuff. And if we move vi to extra there is hardly any point for having a
vi over a vim package becuase the saving in space is marginal. Leaving
KISS alone ...
> > I was not aware of the double loading, a testbuild showed me that it is
> > easy to build both packages (vim/gvim) without the path specified. The
> > idea behind specifying was that gvim and vim use the same runtime but
> > only one package ships it. So being explicit instead of implicit seemed
> > like a good idea to me. Anyway, that will be gone as well in the new
> > layout.
> I understand the python idea here about explicit is better than
> explicit, but vim dont need that, really.
Well that iss the whole "assumption" theory. We 'assume' that the pathes
are the same, but then the beginning of every catastrophy is a bloody
> > Hopefully tonight I can push them to testing. For the update people will
> > be forced to remove the /usr/bin/vim and I think the /usr/bin/rview
> > symlink manually. I tried to find a way around that, but no dice.
> > -T
> We are waiting until that...
Yeah, there was a little issue called food poising, not pretty but well
> Well, for not be so long, I made some packages for vi/vim/gvim with
> ruby1.9, for that I made a patch for vim (sent for vim_dev today) and
> uploaded for ArchLinux-BR repository [repo.archlinux-br.org]. I
I hope that will hit the vim upstream soon as it would help to keep the
package clean. Thanks for the work.
More information about the aur-general