On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:52:16 +0100, Jan de Groot wrote: > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 17:24 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote: >> 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. > > I don't think we should go back to a fucked vim package with /etc/virc > like we had it in the past. We switched from that to nvi, which fucked > up files if they contained unicode stuff (it would just segfault in the > middle of a save operation, leaving you with a broken file). > After that, we decided to go for busybox, which works fairly well as vi, > is maintained, but doesn't do anything that looks like vim. > > IMHO vi is totally useless on most systems. I prefer to uninstall it and > do ln -s vim /usr/bin/vi instead. Users who complain about vi being too > limited should do that too.
I wonder the same. I cannot imagine why anybody would want to use vi. Personally I would not mind if nano was the only interactive editor in [core]. But keeping the current busybox vi is also fine. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
