Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: > Le 2013-01-24 07:21, Allan McRae a écrit : >> On 24/01/13 22:08, Alexander Rødseth wrote: >>> === [core] === >>> >>> For [core], there are two uneeded orphans, that also aren't make >>> dependencies for any other [core] packages: >>> >>> openldap >>> vi >>> >>> If I may be so bold, maybe vim or another editor (still providing the >>> "vi" command) could take over for the vi package? >> I agree with just dumping vi and moving [vim] to core... But we can not >> put split packages across repos and gvim and deps are not going there so >> that is a no... > > Moving to another thread for clarity. > > +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] ?). > FWIW this is the original discussion which brought this crippled vi upon us https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13109 but more importantly https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13239 Do vim and gvim really have to share the same PKGBUILD? I would be in favour of having a proper modern vim implementation in core no matter what its name would be. The only downside is that vim would need signoffs. I think that if a different PKGBUILD is used for gvim then gvim wouldn't need those as well. Greg
