On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Aaron Griffin<[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Tobias Kieslich<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hiya, >> >> my main gripe with nvi is the not missing bad badly broken support >> for unicode stuff. I didn't have time to check out how and if other >> distros deal with it. However I'm all for keeping vim out of core. about >> the renaming, I couldn't care less. But the main point is that LSB >> expects a vi. A binary name that is. And that's why I'm perfectly fine >> with keeping the package name. Nvi by default installes itself as vi. >> >> I have a few more changes for vim/gvim which I will get up this week. > > So all this vi/vim/gvim hassle is really because we want to save some > package size and share data between packages. > > Why not: > vi: minimal vim build > vim: replaces=(vi) provides=(vi) > gvim: replaces=(vi vim) provides=(vi vim)
I think you meant conflicts instead of replaces. > > This rigmarole is getting to be a huge headache - especially > considering that gvim in testing needs a rebuild due to ruby still... >
