On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:35:29AM -0500, Dave Reisner wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Paul Gideon Dann <pdgiddie@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > On Thursday 24 Jan 2013 11:05:22 Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: > > > +1 to drop vi. I cannot imagine why someone would want to use this crap > > ... > > > > > > We already have nano in [core], so I think that vim could stay in > > > [extra] (do we really need 2 text editors in [core] ?). > > > > Vi is the standard UNIX text-editor. Many admins rely on the fact that vi > > is > > available everywhere. It really should be in core. > > > > Also, I know you might be referring to "plain vi", which is a completely > > different beast to Vim, but the latter (which provides "vi" too) has a > > *huge* > > userbase. Calling it crap is just bizarre... > > > > Paul > > > > Incorrect -- ed is the standard unix editor. > > http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.html > > More seriously, POSIX says vi is optional for us: > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/vi.html > > Please remember that dropping it from [core] makes it in no way any less > available. > > I've no problems with moving vi as long as it doesn't disappear from the > install media. It's useful to have around long enough until you can pacman > -S vim. This does raise the question of whether we should have nano in [core] in the first place. At least vi is referenced by POSIX. -- David J. Haines djhaines@xxxxxxx
