I have just noticed in f33 container, this change was implemented: [root@9c06602a8aa6 ~]# vim /etc/yum.repos.d/x.repo No vim found, using vi, press ENTER to continue It's much much better, thank you a lot to the maintainer (probably Zdenek)! On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 13:29, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 13/10/20 16:04 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote: > >On 10/13/20 12:34 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> On 13/10/20 07:45 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote: > >>> > >>> On 10/12/20 5:15 PM, Joe Doss wrote: > >>>> On 10/12/20 1:50 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote: > >>>>> This would break using Vim when vim-minimal and vim-enhanced are > >>>>> installed (it would start Vi instead of typed Vim). To make it work, > >>>>> vim-minimal would have to conflict with vim-enhanced, which doesn't > >>>>> make > >>>>> sense - Vi and Vim binaries can exist together just fine. > >>>> > >>>> I have vim-enhanced and vim-minimal installed > >>>> > >>>> # rpm -qa |grep vim > >>>> vim-common-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64 > >>>> vim-filesystem-8.2.1770-1.fc33.noarch > >>>> vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64 > >>>> vim-enhanced-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64 > >>>> > >>>> and when I type vi it launches vim. > >>> I'm sorry I forgot about this alias - yes, there is an alias which is > >>> applied when both - vim-minimal and vim-enhanced - are installed so it > >>> launches 'vim' when you type 'vi'. I would say less people will complain > >>> if something has more features than if it has less, so I'm content with > >>> this alias. > >>>> > >>>> # whereis vi > >>>> vi: /usr/bin/vi /usr/share/man/man1p/vi.1p.gz > >>>> /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1.gz > >>>> # /usr/bin/vi --version > >>>> VIM - Vi IMproved 8.2 (2019 Dec 12, compiled Sep 29 2020 00:00:00) > >>>> > >>>> It doesn't look like these are existing together just fine. It seems > >>>> that vim takes over vi. Shouldn't these conflict and only one can be > >>>> installed over the other? > >>> 'Vi' as the original project is no longer (I'm not sure for how long) > >>> shipped in Fedora. 'Vi' we ship is just 'VIM' compiled with 'small' set > >>> of features (f.e. without syntax highlighting) to mimic the original > >>> 'Vi'. So if you run 'vi --version' it always shows 'VIM'. > >>>> > >>>>> In the end I find it incorrect to mislead users by default by telling > >>>>> them 'Vim works' but Vi is run instead - Vi and Vim don't have the > >>>>> same > >>>>> set of features, which may lead into bug reports caused by this > >>>>> mistake. > >>>> > >>>> Isn't that the reverse behavior detailed above? I type vi on Fedora > >>>> Workstation it launches vim? I assume this isn't causing bug reports. > >>> You're right, as I wrote above - aliasing vi->vim doesn't seem as a > >>> problem to me, but aliasing vim->vi as clime suggested can cause mislead > >>> for users. > >> > >> I would also appreciate if "vim" ran the executable installed by > >> vim-minimal. I frequently type "vim" on servers I don't own and then > >> grumble that it fails and I have to run "vi" instead. It **is** vim, > >> it's just not installed with that name. Insisting that users call it > >> vi when we know it's vim and they know it's vim seems unnecessary. > > > >It's Vim but with a different set of features - VIM compiled as Vi > >binary is trying to be small, kind of simulate Vi behavior without > >setting 'compatible'. > > > >Since you know it has less features, good for you. But unfortunately, > >not all users know - there was already a report about Vim missing > >highlighting, and the reporter was running /usr/bin/vi. So my aim is to > >prevent such a report. > > > >> > >> $ rpm -qf /usr/bin/vi > >> vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc32.x86_64 > >> > >> Could vim-minimal and vim-enhanced both install the same > >> /etc/profile.d/vim.sh file that did something like this? > >Installing the same file would mean to set conflicts between those two > >package, wouldn't it? Or would you mind explaining how to achieve it? > > RPM allows a file to be owned by more than one package. Fedora has > allowed this for eight years: > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/138 > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership > > The file would be owned by both packages, and only removed if both > packages get removed. That means it would be present if at least one > of them was installed. > > >> > >> if [ -n "${BASH_VERSION-}" -o -n "${KSH_VERSION-}" -o -n > >> "${ZSH_VERSION-}" ]; then > >>  [ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ] && return > >>  # for bash and and ksh and zsh > >>  case "$(type -t vim)-$(type -t vi)" in > >>    file-file) > >>      # both vim and vi are present > >>      alias vi=vim > >>      alias view="vim -R" > >>      ;; > >>    -file) > >>      # only vim-minimal is installed, expose it as 'vim' too > >>      alias vim=vi > >>      ;; > >>  esac > >> fi > >> > >Looks good, although it doesn't touch the problem mistaking Vi and Vim > >as I said before. I tried to come up with a little bash script which > >will mention it really runs vi instead of typed vim (just the important > >snippet): > > > >alias vim="read -rep $'No vim found, using vi, press ENTER to > >continue\n' -n1 -t 20 -s && vi" > > > >This can be add into bash profile instead of 'alias vim=vi' when only > >vim-minimal is installed. > > > >Does it work for our case? IMO only problem would be with scripting, but > >scripts which depend on vim and run on machine without vim-enhanced are > >broken even now, so it shouldn't be a problem here. > > That would work for me. > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
