Bug#698988: O: nvi - 4.4BSD re-implementation of vi
On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 06:38:18PM +0100, Paride Legovini wrote: > Hi Tobias! > > On 2024-02-05 10:43, Tobias Heider wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:38:07AM +, Stuart Prescott wrote: > >> > >> The maintainer for the "nvi" package has indicated that he is unable to > >> maintain this package for the time being. I'm marking this package as > >> orphaned > >> now. > > > > Looks like this is still orphaned over ten years later. > > > > As an active nvi user I would love to step up and help, but the biggest > > problem I see is that the choice of upstream project. Since the original > > is gone there isn't a clear successor. > > > > The BSDs all have their own forks which diverged over time (and those don't > > build on Linux). > > The other two options there are today are https://repo.or.cz/nvi.git which > > d/control currently points to and more recently > > https://github.com/lichray/nvi2. > > > > The first has a very low commit frequency (last commit was 2020, before > > that 2016) and sticks very closely to the original source. nvi2 has added > > new features such as multibyte support and is starting to receive bug fixes > > and features from the different *BSD forks. > > > > I have been thinking of proposing a new package for nvi2 but maybe it would > > make more sense to move this one to the more active upstream. It looks like > > some of the issues we are carrying patches for in Debian might be fixed > > there > > already and if not they seem active enough to merge our fixes. > > > > What would be the best way forward here? ITA and eventually switch the > > upstream > > or start a new package and let this one continue its slow death? > > I think making the O bug and ITA and switching upstream is right thing to > do here, maybe explaining the history of the package in README.source. > > I can't think think of a reasonable use case where nvi2 would not be > a suitable drop-in replacement for nvi; if neither can you (knowing > the editor way better than me!), then I'd say go for the switch. > > I'll be happy reviewing/sponsoring if needed. Thanks! Yours and Andreas' feedback give me enough confidence that it might be worth it, so I'll start hacking and see if it's doable. I think I'll ITA and check if I can fix some smaller things first before making the big move, since that will require more time and lots of testing to make sure everything still works. I'll let you know if I have something that needs sponsoring! > > Cheers, > > Paride >
Bug#698988: O: nvi - 4.4BSD re-implementation of vi
Hi Tobias! On 2024-02-05 10:43, Tobias Heider wrote: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:38:07AM +, Stuart Prescott wrote: >> >> The maintainer for the "nvi" package has indicated that he is unable to >> maintain this package for the time being. I'm marking this package as >> orphaned >> now. > > Looks like this is still orphaned over ten years later. > > As an active nvi user I would love to step up and help, but the biggest > problem I see is that the choice of upstream project. Since the original > is gone there isn't a clear successor. > > The BSDs all have their own forks which diverged over time (and those don't > build on Linux). > The other two options there are today are https://repo.or.cz/nvi.git which > d/control currently points to and more recently > https://github.com/lichray/nvi2. > > The first has a very low commit frequency (last commit was 2020, before > that 2016) and sticks very closely to the original source. nvi2 has added > new features such as multibyte support and is starting to receive bug fixes > and features from the different *BSD forks. > > I have been thinking of proposing a new package for nvi2 but maybe it would > make more sense to move this one to the more active upstream. It looks like > some of the issues we are carrying patches for in Debian might be fixed there > already and if not they seem active enough to merge our fixes. > > What would be the best way forward here? ITA and eventually switch the > upstream > or start a new package and let this one continue its slow death? I think making the O bug and ITA and switching upstream is right thing to do here, maybe explaining the history of the package in README.source. I can't think think of a reasonable use case where nvi2 would not be a suitable drop-in replacement for nvi; if neither can you (knowing the editor way better than me!), then I'd say go for the switch. I'll be happy reviewing/sponsoring if needed. Cheers, Paride
Bug#698988: O: nvi - 4.4BSD re-implementation of vi
On 2024-02-05 Tobias Heider wrote: [...] > As an active nvi user I would love to step up and help, but the biggest > problem I see is that the choice of upstream project. Since the original > is gone there isn't a clear successor. > The BSDs all have their own forks which diverged over time (and those don't > build on Linux). > The other two options there are today are https://repo.or.cz/nvi.git which > d/control currently points to and more recently > https://github.com/lichray/nvi2. > The first has a very low commit frequency (last commit was 2020, before > that 2016) and sticks very closely to the original source. nvi2 has added > new features such as multibyte support and is starting to receive bug fixes > and features from the different *BSD forks. > I have been thinking of proposing a new package for nvi2 but maybe it > would make more sense to move this one to the more active upstream. > It looks like some of the issues we are carrying patches for in Debian > might be fixed there already and if not they seem active enough to > merge our fixes. > What would be the best way forward here? ITA and eventually switch the > upstream or start a new package and let this one continue its slow > death? Hello Thomas, On one hand it depends on whether there is significant value in keeping the other nvi around, i.e. a significant part of the userbase would be reluctant to switch. (I have no opinion on that I use vim ;-) On the other hand reducing the number of QA-maintained packages is a strong argument for switching. cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
Bug#698988: O: nvi - 4.4BSD re-implementation of vi
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:38:07AM +, Stuart Prescott wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: normal > > The maintainer for the "nvi" package has indicated that he is unable to > maintain this package for the time being. I'm marking this package as orphaned > now. If you want to be the new maintainer, please take it -- see > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/index.html#howto-o for detailed instructions > how to adopt a package properly. > > Description-en: 4.4BSD re-implementation of vi > Vi is the original screen based text editor for Unix systems. > It is considered the standard text editor, and is available on > almost all Unix systems. > . > Nvi is intended as a "bug-for-bug compatible" clone of the original > BSD vi editor. As such, it doesn't have a lot of snazzy features as do > some of the other vi clones such as elvis and vim. However, if all > you want is vi, this is the one to get. > Looks like this is still orphaned over ten years later. As an active nvi user I would love to step up and help, but the biggest problem I see is that the choice of upstream project. Since the original is gone there isn't a clear successor. The BSDs all have their own forks which diverged over time (and those don't build on Linux). The other two options there are today are https://repo.or.cz/nvi.git which d/control currently points to and more recently https://github.com/lichray/nvi2. The first has a very low commit frequency (last commit was 2020, before that 2016) and sticks very closely to the original source. nvi2 has added new features such as multibyte support and is starting to receive bug fixes and features from the different *BSD forks. I have been thinking of proposing a new package for nvi2 but maybe it would make more sense to move this one to the more active upstream. It looks like some of the issues we are carrying patches for in Debian might be fixed there already and if not they seem active enough to merge our fixes. What would be the best way forward here? ITA and eventually switch the upstream or start a new package and let this one continue its slow death? Tobias
Bug#698988: O: nvi - 4.4BSD re-implementation of vi
Package: wnpp Severity: normal The maintainer for the nvi package has indicated that he is unable to maintain this package for the time being. I'm marking this package as orphaned now. If you want to be the new maintainer, please take it -- see http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/index.html#howto-o for detailed instructions how to adopt a package properly. Description-en: 4.4BSD re-implementation of vi Vi is the original screen based text editor for Unix systems. It is considered the standard text editor, and is available on almost all Unix systems. . Nvi is intended as a bug-for-bug compatible clone of the original BSD vi editor. As such, it doesn't have a lot of snazzy features as do some of the other vi clones such as elvis and vim. However, if all you want is vi, this is the one to get. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
