Hi,
that can be done, sure, however I don't like the idea of having an
extra package conflict with a core one.
We could name the package nvi, call the binaries nvi and provide a
symlink that gets replace on installing vim but all this symlinking
stuff has proved itself to be error prone.
- T
Quoting Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx>:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Thomas Bohn <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-05-05 19:20 +0200, tobias@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
the current vi package is actually nvi, the purpose of that was to have a
smaller package for core that also would not stall any updates of
vim/gvim while vi sits in testing.
I know that. That is why I'm asking. Either nvi or Vim. Both makes it
complex.
Th vim package is not uglier then it used to be before,
Actually, I don't see a big problem with vim having provides/conflicts
with vi, so that it will completely supplant it. That way we also
cover the users who USE and EXPECT 'vim' but still type 'vi' (sigh)
