[request-sponsor] 6422494 - VIM should be in WOS and installed as /usr/bin/vim
Hi Eric, Ah - got it. I see your logic, but I don't think this list is really set up to pair people with mentors - which is really what you're looking for. People should definitely respond who are willing to help Eric get up to speed about the putback process. Eric - if you don't get a response here, you'll want to ask around individually. Question for the people on this list: does it seem that something like a 'request-mentor' alias might be useful? Thanks a lot. Bonnie Eric Boutilier wrote On 05/25/06 15:34,: > On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bonnie Corwin wrote: > >>Hi Eric, >> >>Who is the external contributor requesting a sponsor for this fix? > > > Hi Bonnie, > > 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 > > >>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 >>>Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:37:14 -0500 (CDT) >>>To: Keith M Wesolowski , 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 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 >> > ___ > request-sponsor mailing list > request-sponsor at opensolaris.org
[request-sponsor] 6422494 - VIM should be in WOS and installed as /usr/bin/vim
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bonnie Corwin wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Who is the external contributor requesting a sponsor for this fix? Hi Bonnie, 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 > > 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 >> Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:37:14 -0500 (CDT) >> To: Keith M Wesolowski , 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 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 >
[request-sponsor] 6422494 - VIM should be in WOS and installed as /usr/bin/vim
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 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:37:14 -0500 (CDT) To: Keith M Wesolowski , 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 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] 6422494 - VIM should be in WOS and installed as /usr/bin/vim
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 > Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:37:14 -0500 (CDT) > To: Keith M Wesolowski , 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 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
[request-sponsor] 6422494 - VIM should be in WOS and installed as /usr/bin/vim
Eric Boutilier wrote: > This is a sponsor request for CR 6422494 - VIM should be in WOS and > installed as /usr/bin/vim. As I just noted in the original thread, watch for duplication or conflicts with the /usr/bin/gvim being installed by LSARC 2006/280 (Sun Studio integration into /usr/bin). -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
