On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 12:29:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Mar 16, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote: > > > `busybox vi` is rather limited, but is reasonable as an editor of last > > resort > > Agreed: this is a very good idea since I really think that every default > install must provide something enough vi-compatible. > A simple solution could be to have busybox provide vi as a very low > priority alternative.
I've opened a wishlist bug in busybox for this. It seems like something that busybox should ideally provide if installed, even if there's some reason not to include busybox in default installations. smcv