On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis<grbzks@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > I would be in favour of building a vim package in [core] that includes > both > > a vi & vim binary > > or you mean symlinking vi to vim... which is fine. the problem is not > so much 'really vi but vim' but more that the whole package was/is > (testing not included) really really screwed up. if busybox was in > arch by default I'd suggest symlinking to that and let people change > the symlink if they need something more powerful, esp since busybox > can provide so many apps. > > -- > Caleb Cushing > > http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com > No i dont mean symlinking vi to vim. Thats not an option. See http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13239#comment39968 & downwards. I mean building both in the same PKGBUILD. See the CRUX Pkgfile i posted previously I think it does exactly that. -- Greg
