Hello Ian, Am Fri, May 03, 2024 at 01:24:15PM +0100 schrieb Ian Abbott: > 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.
You're right. I did not look close enough. Sorry for the noise then. > 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. Could confuse users, but otherwise, I think it's fine to make that possible in ptxdist. Developer can decide then. Greets Alex
