=== Signoff report for [testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 29 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 5 fully signed off packages
* 40 packages missing signoffs
* 0 packages older than 14 days
(Note:
On 30/03/15 08:29, Allan McRae wrote:
On 30/03/15 01:15, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
This was discussed about two years ago but no action was taken.
The proposal is simple:
- Drop the vi package from the repos
- Add vim-minimal to the installation image
This seems like a good idea because
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Evangelos Foutras
evange...@foutrelis.com wrote:
On 22/04/15 00:49, Allan McRae wrote:
I think the symlink is very important. And I am very against VIsudo
calling anything other than vi by default. Unless you rename it nanosudo.
The problem is that vim is
On 22/04/15 01:05, Jan Alexander Steffens wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Evangelos Foutras
evange...@foutrelis.com wrote:
On 22/04/15 00:49, Allan McRae wrote:
I think the symlink is very important. And I am very against VIsudo
calling anything other than vi by default. Unless you
On 21/04/15 23:45, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
As long as the EDITOR variable is supported by those programs, maybe yes.
But I don't think creating a symlink *anyway* and make vim provide vi
is inappropriate.
Yes, the VISUAL/EDITOR environment variables should still be honored by
these
On 21 April 2015 at 22:32, Evangelos Foutras evange...@foutrelis.com wrote:
On 21/04/15 16:27, Allan McRae wrote:
What happened to adding a symlink? Now there is no vi in base, many
packages there are broken out of the box - sudo (visudo), bash
(bashbug), less (when pressing v). There is
On 21/04/15 16:27, Allan McRae wrote:
What happened to adding a symlink? Now there is no vi in base, many
packages there are broken out of the box - sudo (visudo), bash
(bashbug), less (when pressing v). There is bound to be more...
Or are we having all those packages depend on vim?
On 22/04/15 07:00, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
On 21/04/15 23:45, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
As long as the EDITOR variable is supported by those programs, maybe yes.
But I don't think creating a symlink *anyway* and make vim provide vi
is inappropriate.
Yes, the VISUAL/EDITOR environment
On 22/04/15 01:30, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
On 22/04/15 01:05, Jan Alexander Steffens wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Evangelos Foutras
evange...@foutrelis.com wrote:
On 22/04/15 00:49, Allan McRae wrote:
I think the symlink is very important. And I am very against VIsudo
calling
On 22/04/15 10:58, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
I feel a stronger case would need to be made for moving vim-minimal to
[core]. At the moment we're only trying to figure out a sane fallback
editor, mostly for visudo and I guess cronie's crontab. nano seems to
fit the bill and requires no additional
On 22/04/15 04:08, Allan McRae wrote:
On 22/04/15 10:58, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
I feel a stronger case would need to be made for moving vim-minimal to
[core]. At the moment we're only trying to figure out a sane fallback
editor, mostly for visudo and I guess cronie's crontab. nano seems to
On 22/04/15 02:57, Allan McRae wrote:
On 22/04/15 08:55, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
By the way, it's worth noting that vim-minimal has a footprint of about
30 MiB. It's not much, but compared to nano's 2 MiB, it's way larger.
I'm probably repeating what I've written in my previous posts, but to
On 22/04/15 08:55, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
On 22/04/15 01:30, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
On 22/04/15 01:05, Jan Alexander Steffens wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Evangelos Foutras
evange...@foutrelis.com wrote:
On 22/04/15 00:49, Allan McRae wrote:
I think the symlink is very
13 matches
Mail list logo
