On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis <grbzks@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > 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 > Heres the gvim script too, all those are bundled together: http://crux.nu/ports/crux-2.5/opt/gvim/Pkgfile -- Greg
