On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@xxxxxx> wrote: > Am Mittwoch 17 Juni 2009 schrieb Allan McRae: > > Tobias Powalowski wrote: > > > Hi > > > just wondered, what is the status of vi/vim in testing, this one blocks > > > archboot from moving to extra, is there any progress of moving it to > > > extra/core? > > > > On this topic, both vi an vim are currently in base. Is this a mistake? > > I find the new (n)vi unusable and and removed it and make vi a symlink > > to vim. Although the current vim is bigger, I would not object to > > removing vi and adding a symlink from vi to vim-normal... > > > > Allan > It's a whole mess, which needs to be cleaned. > First should be decided in which direction this should go. > personally i hate this nvi, it's so restricted. > greetings > tpowa <tpowa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> I was about to send an email to Tobias the other day but i could get my script to work so i removed the draft i had saved. IMO this packaging scheme sucks for both vi and vim. I was looking at the CRUX vim script and if a package like that can be achieved IMO its the best solution. Current situation (in testing) vim depends only on perl (optdepend) so this package might as well be in [core] instead of [extra] . That means it would need signoffs for it & gvim as well. I would be in favour of building a vim package in [core] that includes both a vi & vim binary, like CRUX seems to do it. http://crux.nu/ports/crux-2.5/core/vim/Pkgfile I just couldnt get my script to build so hadnt suggested it so far. I wonder if thats possible. The reasons the previous scheme changed was mainly because people complained that vi isnt really vi but vim, so this scenario would cover it Sorry for interefering. -- Greg
