Who is the external contributor requesting a sponsor for this fix?
Eric Boutilier wrote On 05/24/06 11:40,:
> This is a sponsor request for CR 6422494 - VIM should be in WOS and
> installed as /usr/bin/vim.
> See below for more background.
> Eric Boutilier
> From: Eric Boutilier <Eric.Boutilier at Sun.COM>
> Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:37:14 -0500 (CDT)
> To: Keith M Wesolowski <keith.wesolowski at sun.com>, tools-discuss at
> opensolaris.org, sfwnv-discuss at opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: What about VIM (vi Improved?)
> On Mon, 8 May 2006, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>>On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 02:06:54PM +0300, Cyril Plisko wrote:
>>>On 5/8/06, Brian Nitz <Brian.Nitz at sun.com> wrote:
>>>>No, it looks like I missed the obvious. Does anyone know if there is a
>>>>reason why we can't do this?
>>>>Cyril, do you want to reopen RFE 6422494 with this proposal or should I?
>>>Brian, please do so !
>>Thanks. BTW, although the evaluation field isn't shown ($...@#$%!
>>b.o.o!), this is what I put there when closing the RFE:
>>While adding VIM to Solaris is a fine idea, replacing /usr/bin/vi with
>>it is not. Also, since VIM is not GNU software, it does not belong
>>in /usr/gnu. Please do re-open this bug with a synopsis and
>>description that more accurately reflect the true scope of the RFE:
>>you want VIM in the WOS. This absolutely is a worthwhile goal.
>>If the current synopsis is an accurate reflection of the RFE,
>>there is no reasonable way this RFE can be implemented: vim is
>>incompatible with vi, and has other characteristics (such as
>>a huge memory footprint relative to vi) that may make it unsuitable
>>or undesirable for many current vi users.
>>I want to make it absolutely clear that putting VIM in /usr/bin sounds
>>to me like a fine plan. But I'll be very interested to hear how you
>>plan to deliver VIM's 'view' binary, since its name conflicts with
>>that of the existing program.
> I'm going to start drafting a proposal for this. (Bug ID 6422494)
> Cyril had a good question that nobody replied to: Is it feasible to
> deliver only part of the vim package?
> A typical vim build installs the following in /usr/bin:
> - 3 regular files: vim, vimtutor, and xxd
> - 11 files sym-linked to vim: evim, ex, gview, gvim, gvimdiff, rgview,
> rgvim, rview, rvim, view, vimdiff. Two of these -- view and ex --
> collide with existing files.
> Here are some possibilities that I can think of:
> 1. Include vim (and its supporting files), but omit everything else (the
> 11 sym-links, xxd, and vimtutor).
> 2. Include vim, vimtutor, and the 11 sym-links, but omit
> ex and view.
> 3. Include everything, renaming view and ex (viewm/exm?
> 4. Other...?
> If we went by the usage patterns of a lot of vim users (me included),
> option #1 seems to make a lot of sense. But my take is that #3 is best --
> mostly because implementations of the vim package are already in
> widespread use on other popular platforms, and it'd be best to be as
> compatible as possible with those.
> : xxd is a hex dumper/undumper
> request-sponsor mailing list
> request-sponsor at opensolaris.org