Kevin Kofler wrote:
Patrice Dumas wrote:
If there is none, it uses /bin/vi. In fact I have sone a bit of
investigations and it uses, in pathnames.h _PATH_VI which is defined in
/usr/invlude/paths.h.
So it is a missing dependency, in my opinion.
No it's not. People may want to use an actually usable editor and not have
their system polluted with this relict of history.
I use, exclusively, kate-based editors (usually kwrite, but also Kate
and KDevelop), and... <drumroll please> vim. Granted I just went and dug
up vim-enhanced last night (not installed by the KDE spin by default,
bleh), but I object to the classification of /bin/vi as a "relic of
history" and not "an actually usable editor". (vim-minimal is perfect
for most editing of things in /etc, thank you very much! Including
crontabs...)
I guess I should file bugs against cvs, sudo and fcron which all have
unnecessary Requires on vim-minimal.
I'd consider a system with no 'vi' to be broken :-). /bin/vi seems to be
the lowest common denominator for a TUI editor on *nix systems.
Obviously, /bin/vi isn't necessarily Bram Moolenaar's VIM, but it's
always close enough to be more-or-less usable (where the "more-or-less"
almost invariably relates to how well it handles the arrow keys).
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
"Do you do windows as well?"
"Only when I'm forced to deal with Microsoft..."
-- from a story by Feech
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
