On 03/05/2024 10:40, Alexander Dahl wrote:
Hello Ian,
Am Fri, May 03, 2024 at 10:12:47AM +0100 schrieb Ian Abbott:
On 03/05/2024 07:59, Alexander Dahl wrote:
Am Thu, May 02, 2024 at 03:53:22PM +0100 schrieb Ian Abbott:
+
+comment "BusyBox' vi is selected!"
+ depends on VIM_VIM && BUSYBOX_VI
+
+config VIM_VI_SYMLINK
+ depends on VIM_VIM && !BUSYBOX_VI
The !BUSYBOX_VI is redundant, but I guess one can keep it.
I'm not sure why it's redundant. I don't want this option and BUSYBOX_VI
fighting over the symlink to /usr/bin/vi in the image.
Right, there should be only one package setting that symlink.
What I meant was: VIM_VIM already depends on !BUSYBOX_VI so if
VIM_VI_SYMLINK depends on VIM_VIM, then !BUSYBOX_VI is already
implicitly satisfied and stating it again is not strictly necessary.
Actually, my patch removed the dependency of VIM_VIM on !BUSYBOX_VI so
that /usr/bin/vim can be installed alongside busybox's /usr/bin/vi.
I'm not sure if there is a valid use case for installing both busybox vi
and vim. Obviously it would use more space in the image, but if busybox
is already running, running busybox's vi should be less memory hungry
than running vim.
--
-=( Ian Abbott <[email protected]> || MEV Ltd. is a company )=-
-=( registered in England & Wales. Regd. number: 02862268. )=-
-=( Regd. addr.: S11 & 12 Building 67, Europa Business Park, )=-
-=( Bird Hall Lane, STOCKPORT, SK3 0XA, UK. || www.mev.co.uk )=-
