Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ralph Corderoy wrote: |> Ok, i do not have Spinellis repo locally (yet), it is too big. |> (How large is it in the end, Ralph?) | |1.5 GiB. Too large to pull home with ADSL. I've a VM out on the |Internet that has fast connectivity and I copied it there. Interesting

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Valdis, > > What is Fedora Core 27? :-) Fedora 26 is the latest version > > Fedora 26 is ancient history.. :) > > [~] cat /etc/redhat-release > Fedora release 29 (Rawhide) Yes, Jon Steinhart also pointed out I was wrong privately, to share the credit. I took it from

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Steffen, > Ok, i do not have Spinellis repo locally (yet), it is too big. > (How large is it in the end, Ralph?) 1.5 GiB. Too large to pull home with ADSL. I've a VM out on the Internet that has fast connectivity and I copied it there. But don't worry about replying after a delay. I've

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 18:15:08 -, Ralph Corderoy said: > Hi Jon, > > > Things always get weird as one's installed distribution gets crusty. > > My Fedora Core 27 installation > > What is Fedora Core 27? :-) Fedora 26 is the latest version, so 27 > might be Fedora Devel, but then you said it's

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Bakul Shah wrote: |On Mar 20, 2018, at 5:04 PM, Ralph Corderoy wrote: |>>> mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL |>>> and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of |>>> the default values. Kurt

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hello Ralph. Ralph Corderoy wrote: |>> mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL |>> and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of |>> the default values. Kurt Shoens, k...@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, is down |>> as the author in

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Bakul Shah wrote: |On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:57:28 +0700 Robert Elz wrote: |Robert Elz writes: |> Date:Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:43:37 +0100 |> From:Steffen Nurpmeso |> Message-ID:

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

On Mar 20, 2018, at 5:04 PM, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > Hi Steffen, > >>> mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL >>> and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of >>> the default values. Kurt Shoens,

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Paul Fox wrote: ... i love this mailing list. i keep trying to leave, but, i can't! -- P Vixie -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

ralph wrote: > Hi Steffen, > > > > mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL > > > and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of > > > the default values. Kurt Shoens, k...@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, is down > > > as the author in

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Steffen, > > mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL > > and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of > > the default values. Kurt Shoens, k...@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, is down > > as the author in BSD-1-253-gc145e9e0ab5 of > >

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Andy Bradford wrote: Thus said Ralph Corderoy on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:56:09 -: For evermore, programs that only offer one means of invoking an editor have had to checking first $VISUAL, falling back to $EDITOR. :-) You mean like the following chunk of code: :-)

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Thus said Ralph Corderoy on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:56:09 -: > For evermore, programs that only offer one means of invoking an editor > have had to checking first $VISUAL, falling back to $EDITOR. :-) You mean like the following chunk of code: :-)

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

>That reminds me, whatnow(1) needs a `visual'. I'm not sure that's true ... you have always been able to supply your own editor to "edit" at the whatnow prompt. --Ken -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:57:28 +0700 Robert Elz wrote: Robert Elz writes: > Date:Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:43:37 +0100 > From:Steffen Nurpmeso > Message-ID: <20180320144337.zm2ro%stef...@sdaoden.eu> > > | BSD Mail had both of ~v and

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Robert Elz wrote: |Date:Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:43:37 +0100 |From:Steffen Nurpmeso |Message-ID: <20180320144337.zm2ro%stef...@sdaoden.eu> | || BSD Mail had both of ~v and ~e from the very start. I know of no || known

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Date:Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:43:37 +0100 From:Steffen Nurpmeso Message-ID: <20180320144337.zm2ro%stef...@sdaoden.eu> | BSD Mail had both of ~v and ~e from the very start. I know of no | known released file which acted otherwise. Including in the

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ralph Corderoy wrote: |>> so a program like mail would offer two escapes (~e vs. ~v) to let |>> yo invoke either. |> |> So ... I guess programs would look at the terminal and if your speed |> was 9600 baud or greater, you'd use VISUAL, and if it was slower you'd |>

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Ken, > > so a program like mail would offer two escapes (~e vs. ~v) to let > > yo invoke either. > > So ... I guess programs would look at the terminal and if your speed > was 9600 baud or greater, you'd use VISUAL, and if it was slower you'd > use EDITOR? No, AFAIK it was always the user's

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ken Hornstein writes: > So ... I guess programs would look at the terminal and if your speed was > 9600 baud or greater, you'd use VISUAL, and if it was slower you'd use > EDITOR? I could believe that (although from memory I don't recall vi > being that bad at 2400 baud, but it

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Date:Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:29:30 -0400 From:Ken Hornstein Message-ID: <20180319192931.209f1d0...@pb-smtp1.pobox.com> | So since you were there ... I never did understand the point (or the | distinction) between VISUAL and EDITOR. Paul's explanation

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

ken wrote: > > > So since you were there ... I never did understand the point (or the > > > distinction) between VISUAL and EDITOR. More specifically, I never > > > understood when you were supposed to use one versus the other. > > > >i can answer that one. > > > >in the bad old days, if

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

> > So since you were there ... I never did understand the point (or the > > distinction) between VISUAL and EDITOR. More specifically, I never > > understood when you were supposed to use one versus the other. > >i can answer that one. > >in the bad old days, if you were working on a slow dialup

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

ken wrote: > So since you were there ... I never did understand the point (or the > distinction) between VISUAL and EDITOR. More specifically, I never > understood when you were supposed to use one versus the other. i can answer that one. in the bad old days, if you were working on a slow

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

>EDITOR and VISUAL are environment variables - therefore did >not exist before 7th edition (or 32V) - that is, about 79. All of >MH, e, ex, vi, and Mail existed long before those could possibly >have been in use.Exactly when EDITOR first appeared I am >not sure (it was not one of the env

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

> I've been using (N)MH since 2,000 Quick lads! A new user! Don't let him get away! -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Date:Sun, 18 Mar 2018 15:39:50 -0700 From:Bakul Shah Message-ID: <20180318224005.c8d91156e...@mail.bitblocks.com> | Bill Joy wrote vi in 1976 while at UCB. I know, but it wasn't on the 1BSD tape (ex was I think), the vi command in ex (and the

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Thus said Ken Hornstein on Sun, 18 Mar 2018 19:49:03 -0400: > If you're a long-time MH user, I admit that I am surprised you never > set anything in your profile; it seems like the default was prompter > for a long time (although, like I said earlier, that depends on your > specific site

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

>> Yeah, I tried it quickly and it seems simple enough. And people who >> have editor in their profile or use EDITOR/VISUAL won't notice a >> change. > >Under what conditions will this change? I have neither EDITOR/VISUAL nor >profile settings for editor, but maybe that won't matter

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Bakul, > Initially I used vi and Mail but later switched to e and mh -- may be > because @ Fortune we now had Dave Yost and Rick Kiessig they'd both > worked at Rand and on at least the Rand Editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Text_Editor isn't RAND's text editor, unfortunately, though I

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 04:06:30 +0700 Robert Elz wrote: Robert Elz writes: > Date:Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:47:24 -0400 > From:David Levine > Message-ID: <2558-1521395244.835...@bijr.xoxa.ckyx> > > > | The precendence in order from

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Date:Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:47:24 -0400 From:David Levine Message-ID: <2558-1521395244.835...@bijr.xoxa.ckyx> | The precendence in order from high to low is: 1) editor | component, 2) VISUAL, 3) EDITOR. Actually, just to be precise, before those

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Bakul wrote: > > Yes, it does. Add this to your profile to preserve your current behavior: > > Editor: vi > > > > You can add it before picking up the change, without impacting > > current behavior. > > There are a number of programs that allow use of an editor. > Commands like chfn, chpass,

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

> > Yes, it does. Add this to your profile to preserve your current behavior: > Editor: vi > > You can add it before picking up the change, without impacting > current behavior. There are a number of programs that allow use of an editor. Commands like chfn, chpass, crontab, sdiff, less/more,

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Andy wrote: > Thus said Ken Hornstein on Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:25:05 -0400: > > > Yeah, I tried it quickly and it seems simple enough. And people who > > have editor in their profile or use EDITOR/VISUAL won't notice a > > change. > > Under what conditions will this change? If there is no

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Thus said Ken Hornstein on Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:25:05 -0400: > Yeah, I tried it quickly and it seems simple enough. And people who > have editor in their profile or use EDITOR/VISUAL won't notice a > change. Under what conditions will this change? I have neither EDITOR/VISUAL nor profile

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Ken, > Paul Vixie wrote: > > prompter is what i was thinking of. Well remembered. I've used that too a long time ago. For quick short emails I prefer the imperative style of giving recipients and subject on the command line rather than interactive of being prompted as that's a bit slower. >

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi David, > > sensible-editor(1) that programs can fall back on. > > That Debian package is available (sensible-utils) on Fedora. If a > suitable editor can't be found via VISUAL, EDITOR, etc., it falls back > to nano. It tries $VISUAL . ~/.selected_editor # Maybe run

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

>i'm good with prompter. i didn't know it existed, and wrote my own >script to do much the same thing a couple of years ago, for use on my >phone. bringing up vi on a phone's ssh connection is... sub-optimal. Alright, done! --Ken -- nmh-workers

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ken wrote: > That sounds reasonable to me. Thoughts, objections? David, I saw > your reply and it sounds like you'd be okay with that, unless I > misunderstood you. I'm fine with it. David -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

>> ... it turns out the default editor back in the day (if you didn't >> configure one with mhconfig) was "prompter", which would give you a >> kind of very simple message input interface (but not exactly like you >> describe). > >prompter is what i was thinking of. repl and forw also used it. it

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ken Hornstein wrote: ... it turns out the default editor back in the day (if you didn't configure one with mhconfig) was "prompter", which would give you a kind of very simple message input interface (but not exactly like you describe). prompter is what i was thinking of. repl and forw also

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ken wrote: > That suggests to me that maybe > the default editor (in absence of any environment variables) should be > prompter, actually My first reaction was negative, but after looking at the man page and giving it a quick try, it might not be so bad. Someone should volunteer to live with it

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

>i have not run comp without first setting VISUAL for at least two >decades, but when i used to do this, it would print a message like "type >your message below, and then hit control-D" and then read from standard >input. when did that change to requiring an external editor? perhaps >that's

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ralph wrote: > That reminds me: Debian, and Ubuntu, have /usr/bin/editor and Fedora doesn't. > sensible-editor(1) that programs can fall back on. That Debian package is available (sensible-utils) on Fedora. If a suitable editor can't be found via VISUAL, EDITOR, etc., it falls back to nano.

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Andy, > I generally don't set VISUAL or EDITOR unless I absolutely have to > (e.g. on Ubuntu which defaults to nano) That reminds me: Debian, and Ubuntu, have /usr/bin/editor and sensible-editor(1) that programs can fall back on. What that is can be set system-wide, or per user.

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Thus said Paul Vixie on Sat, 17 Mar 2018 08:55:41 -0700: > i have not run comp without first setting VISUAL for at least two > decades, but when i used to do this, it would print a message like > "type your message below, and then hit control-D" and then read from > standard input.

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ralph Corderoy wrote: why would our build or install dependency list include any editor? Fedora's is changing from an install dependency on /usr/bin/vi to a Suggests one. I haven't checked what the other distributions do. AIUI the idea is a user won't see $ comp unable to exec

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ralph wrote: > I'd prefer that if they don't have vi installed then they don't gain it. Fedora's slogans include "Less setup". So I can see it wanting to avoid your comp fail scenario. If we want to do anything, nmh could add support to install-mh to ask the user what editor what they want to

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Paul, > i set VISUAL to /usr/local/bin/jove, Don't forget this is a public mailing list. > why would our build or install dependency list include any editor? Fedora's is changing from an install dependency on /usr/bin/vi to a Suggests one. I haven't checked what the other distributions do.

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

On 16 Mar 2018 14:28:15 -0600 "Andy Bradford" wrote: Andy Bradford writes: > Thus said Paul Fox on Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:59:57 -0400: > > > The big exception that I remember was his implementation of infinite > > undo using '.', which broke a corner case of the redo

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

paul wrote: > rewind, please. i set VISUAL to /usr/local/bin/jove, and never have used > any version of vi with any version of mh, ever. that was a simple case of mistaken identity. paul > > why would our build or install dependency list include any editor? > > -- > nmh-workers >

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

rewind, please. i set VISUAL to /usr/local/bin/jove, and never have used any version of vi with any version of mh, ever. why would our build or install dependency list include any editor? -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Thus said Paul Fox on Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:59:57 -0400: > The big exception that I remember was his implementation of infinite > undo using '.', which broke a corner case of the redo command, but is > so easy to use. Oddly enough, that is one exception that I praise and the one difference

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

andy wrote: > Thus said Paul Fox on Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:50:24 -0400: > > > well, part of me wants to take offense at that, since it's not like > > vim is completely compatible with the "real" vi. nvi is much closer, > > in that regard, and should really be the rewrite that gets to use

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Thus said Paul Fox on Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:50:24 -0400: > well, part of me wants to take offense at that, since it's not like > vim is completely compatible with the "real" vi. nvi is much closer, > in that regard, and should really be the rewrite that gets to use the > /usr/bin/vi name. As

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ralph wrote: > Weak dependencies are a recentish addition to RPM specs AIUI. Thanks. These don't seem to be widely used; of the 2,945 packages on my Fedora 27 system, only 78 have a recommendation or suggestion, and some of those are related packages. But it'll have to wait for Fedora 29. The

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Paul, > i thought we were talking about (the fedora equivalent of) > /etc/alternatives, not installed pathname: Nope. > surely the nmh package requirement isn't on a a specific provider of > {/usr}/bin/vi, is it? Yep. Please examine

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

ralph wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > > An aside: Does any package other than vim provide /usr/bin/vi? I > > > think the command might be `dnf provides /usr/bin/vi'. I expect > > > it's a bunch of different sized vim-based packages. > > > > vile is another vi alternative, on all linux

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Paul, > > An aside: Does any package other than vim provide /usr/bin/vi? I > > think the command might be `dnf provides /usr/bin/vi'. I expect > > it's a bunch of different sized vim-based packages. > > vile is another vi alternative, on all linux distributions, and at > least some of the

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

ralph wrote: > An aside: Does any package other than vim provide /usr/bin/vi? I think > the command might be `dnf provides /usr/bin/vi'. I expect it's a bunch > of different sized vim-based packages. vile is another vi alternative, on all linux distributions, and at least some of the bsd

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi David, > > (I think under debian/ubuntu, the vi dependency would be a > > "suggested" installation, not a requirement.) > > I don't know of a good way to do that in a Fedora RPM spec. I don't > consider mentioning it in the rpm description to be "good". I've been poking about. Here's some

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Kevin wrote: > For what it's worth, Fedora 26 has the same issue as 27. The issue was fixed for Fedora 26 (and Fedora 28 and EL6 and EPEL 7). The Fedora 26 package was moved to stable 2 hours ago, so should soon be available as an update:

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

On 11 March 2018 at 14:19, David Levine wrote: > Jon wrote: > > > Things always get weird as one's installed distribution gets crusty. > > My Fedora Core 27 installation recently started whining about conflicts > > between nmh and vi. Surprised me. > > Here's why: > > 1)

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Here's the Fedora bug report: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551126 The initial report included this: Additional info: I guess that shows how few people still use nmh ;^) David -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Paul F wrote: > I don't think anyone participating was suggesting that there be a > hard dependency on vi. The decision on Fedora was made prior to that discussion. (And, it was made on Fedora, not by nmh.) > (I think under > debian/ubuntu, the vi dependency would be a "suggested"

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Jon wrote: > Things always get weird as one's installed distribution gets crusty. > My Fedora Core 27 installation recently started whining about conflicts > between nmh and vi. Surprised me. Here's why: 1) nmh depended on /bin/vi 2) vim-minimal recently changed what it provides from /bin/vi

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ken Hornstein writes: > >Things always get weird as one's installed distribution gets crusty. > >My Fedora Core 27 installation recently started whining about conflicts > >between nmh and vi. Surprised me. > > Is this a "conflict" (as in, you can't have both of the packages > installed at the

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Jon, > Things always get weird as one's installed distribution gets crusty. > My Fedora Core 27 installation What is Fedora Core 27? :-) Fedora 26 is the latest version, so 27 might be Fedora Devel, but then you said it's crusty as if the 27 is a typo for something older, but they stopped

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

ken wrote: > >Things always get weird as one's installed distribution gets crusty. > >My Fedora Core 27 installation recently started whining about conflicts > >between nmh and vi. Surprised me. > > Is this a "conflict" (as in, you can't have both of the packages > installed at the same

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

>Things always get weird as one's installed distribution gets crusty. >My Fedora Core 27 installation recently started whining about conflicts >between nmh and vi. Surprised me. Is this a "conflict" (as in, you can't have both of the packages installed at the same time) or a "requirement" (you