On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Eric Bélanger<[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Aye, sorry - the actual behavior (in my head) is that installing one of them "replaces" the others, so I mistyped it.
