[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Ouch !

> 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 ?


Reply to: