Bug#3013: elvis is too granular and has short description

[Bill Mitchell <mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com>]

Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk> said:

> > 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
> libs.

Heck, only one perfectly good vi is needed if you assume that any
one is as good as any other.  I happen to prefer elvis.  I'd be
suprised if I were the only debian user who happened to prefer elvis.

> > > 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.

I'm not a ctags expert either.  The only GNU fooutils package of which
I'm aware which provides ctags is emacs.  I'm not an emacs user, and
don't have it installed.  Installing the emacs package seems a high
price for non-emacs users to pay just to get ctags.

OTOH, I withdrew the elvisfmt package infavor of textutils fmt when
that seemed reasonable.  I have no objection to withdrawing the mt-st
package in favor of beefed-up a GNU cpio mt package.  I'll be happy
to withdraw the elvisctags package if I'm shown that this is a
reasonable thing to do.