Hi Eric, Who is the external contributor requesting a sponsor for this fix?
Thanks. Bonnie 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[1] > > - 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? > vimview/vimex?) > > 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. > > Eric > > [1]: xxd is a hex dumper/undumper > _______________________________________________ > request-sponsor mailing list > request-sponsor at opensolaris.org
