Bug#3013: elvis is too granular and has short description
Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: Bug#3013: elvis is too granular and has short description"):
> I think it'd be silly to say that the X11 version of the editor
> depended on having the non-X11 version of the editor installed.
> As for executable size:
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 228957 Apr 28 10:45 /usr/bin/elvisnox
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 255471 Apr 28 10:44 /usr/bin/elvisx11
> I also think it'd be silly to only provide the X11 version, which
> currently depends on X11R6 and elf-x11r6lib.
Why ? There are already two perfectly good vi's which don't require X
> > Don't we want to phase elvisctags out - isn't one ctags program enough
> > for the project ?
> Sounds like a good idea to me. Which ctags package do you nominate?
I don't know, I'm not a ctags expert. I think that the one from the
GNU fooutils for some foo is probably the one I'd pick if I didn't
know the difference.
> > Yes, you should repeat it. Remember that the description for the
> > other elvis packages may not be available at the time.
> As it happens, I was browsing with dselect yesterday and I noticed a
> number of packages without extended descriptions: base, bash, chfn,
> fdflush, fileutils, findutils, grep, gzip, hostname, image, sed,
> setserial, shellutils, syslinux, tar, textutils, timezone, news,
> open, vlock, manpages, mailx, nvi, pine, libc5, libdb1, bin86,
> gbinutils, electric-fence, gdb, .....
These are all bugs, and as soon as the new bug system is working and
it's feasible to submit them without bombarding debian-devel I'll
report them all automatically.
> I'm confused regarding why
> elviscmn should repeat the summary description information in the
> extended description field when all these other packages do not.
These other packages are broken.
I'm not saying you should repeat the summary description. I'm saying
you should repeat it _and expand on it_.
> However, the next time I update the elvis-2.0 packages I'll add an
> extended description to elviscmn which mentions that exvisx11 and
> elvisnox are vi clones.
That's good, thanks.
> I'm closing this bug report again.
What's happening about ctags ?