[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 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 ___ 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 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
[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 eric.boutil...@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] 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
