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 >>> <[email protected]> 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 not provided in [core] and cannot be part of >>>> a base installation. We can't make an editor from [extra] the default. >>>> >>>> I'm open to suggestions, but consider that nano is the only remaining >>>> editor in [core]. (And it will work fine as a fallback editor.) >>> >>> If that's your condition I'm for bringing vim-minimal into [core]. >>> Leave the other vim variants in [extra]. >> >> While this solution is acceptable, I believe it's a bit of an overkill. >> But if Anatol is fine with maintaining vim-{minimal,runtime} in [core], >> then let's go with vim. (And also include vi symlinks I guess!) > > 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 me > the cleanest implementation is to have one tiny editor in [core] as part > of the base installation (nano), and use that as the fallack for the > five or so programs that used to default to vi. > > Adding a second, much larger, editor in [core] and base (vim) just so > that it can be made the default fallback, seems kind of unnecessary. >
If nano was not in base, what do you think the install proportion would be? This is mainly for consistency. I could not find another distribution where visudo does not call /usr/bin/vi by default (and I saw that provided by vim-minimal a lot). A
