According to James Vega: > In looking at the following request for vim-tiny to provide /bin/vi I > noticed that elvis-tiny already provides such a binary. In order to > fullfil this request, I'd like to ask that elvis-tiny switch to using > alternatives for /bin/vi. > > The plan that I would like to move forward with is for both vim-tiny and > elvis-tiny to provide their binary under /bin and then use alternatives > to provide /usr/bin/vi and /bin/vi (as a slave of the /usr/bin/vi > alternative). > > This looks similar to what elvis-tiny is already doing except it has an > odd /bin/vi binary (generated from debian/wrapper.c) doing the work > instead of utilizing alternatives.
Well, the original bug submission #528494 talks about that- you cannot have different 'vi' binaries in /bin and /usr/bin, since that would be very inconsistent. What /bin/vi in elvis-tiny does is very simple: - if /usr/bin/vi exists, execute it (common case) - else if /bin/elvis-tiny exists execute it (/usr not available) - else print error and exit This way you always get /usr/bin/vi, even if /bin is in your PATH first, unless /usr/bin/vi doesn't exist. We could work together to allow multiple '*vi-tiny' packages to be installed, in that case we should really do the following: - each *vi-tiny package sets an alternative for /bin/vi-tiny - each *vi-tiny package depends on vi-tiny-common - vi-tiny-common is basically the /bin/vi from elvis-tiny, as described above, where it tries to execute /bin/vi-tiny instead of /bin/elvis-tiny However, to me this sounds as a lot of work for very little gain. We already have the elvis-tiny package to provide a small vi clone for situations where /usr is not available. This would be a rescue situation. Is it really neccesary to be able to choose between tons of vi-clones in that case ? Mike. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
