On 02/10/2011 04:22 PM, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
Le 10 février 2011 02:51:26, Gaetan Bisson a écrit :
[2011-02-09 11:23:53 -0500] Stéphane Gaudreault:
4) A compact version of vim
Since it is both maintained upstream and featureful, it seems like the
most reasonable choice to me. And I personally think that the few
additional 100KB compared to other vi's is worth it.
I received a couple of emails from users that wanted to express their
preference for a vim-based vi.
* May need a duplicate PKGBUILD as vim is in [extra] while vi is in
[core]
Would you still name that package "vi" and prevent it from conflicting
with the vim of [extra]? Or something like "vim-tiny" that would
conflict and provide vim?
I do not have a strong opinion on this, but the first choice (name that package
"vi" and prevent it from conflicting with the vim of [extra]) is probably
simpler as the new vim-based vi will be a drop-in replacement of the old vi
pkg.
Stéphane
we did had vi being a stripped vim package in the past. We got rid of it
because upstream vim started to not helping arch users because "it was
broken". That impression was given by our users who didn't understand
that python and other crap that vim support is in vim package and not in vi.
now the same situation is now. Some users don't understand that vi is
nvi and what they want is in vim.
--
Ionuț
