On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bonnie Corwin wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> Who is the external contributor requesting a sponsor for this fix?
There isn't one actually. This is a situation where the person interested
in working on an RFE (me) is a Sun employee, but one who does not have
experience doing putbacks to a consolidation.
My thinking is that although the request-sponsor process was developed
with external (non-Sun) contributors in mind, as far as I can tell it's a
logical process for internal, non-Solaris-engineer contributors as well...
> 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