2013/1/30 Mika Fischer <mika.fischer@xxxxxxxxxx> > [Replying to arch-general since I'm not allowed to post to arch-dev-public] > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Alexander Rødseth <rodseth@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > It's not a given that a vi clone is the most desirable replacement. If an > > editor that is not a vi clone should be preferred, now or in the future, > a > > symlink named vi looks funny. > > How about splitting out a vim-vi-compat (or whatever you want to name > it) package that just contains the /usr/bin/vim -> /usr/bin/vi > Well,I think it should be /usr/bin/vi -> /usr/bin/vim > symlink. This could then provide 'vi' and conflict with it. > > This way people can replace /usr/bin/vi with whatever vi package they > want easily, while being able to keep vim, if they want. > > Best, > Mika >
