vim/nvi priority Re: moving mutt to standard priority
On 05-Oct-99, 04:00 (CDT), Marco d'Itri <email@example.com> wrote:
> I agree... Why does it [vim] have a lower priority in alternatives
> than nvi?
I don't know. That's not what I remember from the discussion amongst the
various vi and editor maintainers when we set the relative priorities,
but unfortunately I cleaned out that discusssion just a few months ago.
If I remember correctly, Dale Sheetz guided that discussion, maybe he
can post the final list.
What I remember as a general concept is that the package that is
installed by default (nvi, in this case), should have the *lowest*
priority wrt update-alternatives, under the assumption that if the
sysadmin goes to the effort to install an option vi clone, they probably
prefer that one.
As to why nvi is "Standard" and vim/elvis/etc. are "Optional", it's
because nvi is closest to a standard, classic, BSD Bill Joy vi, warts
and all. Also, I think it's the smallest full-fledged vi. Certainly
that choice can be argued, but I'm not really interested in discussing
it: everybody has a favorite, and it's not worth changing. If there is
*consensus* that vim or elvis should be Standard, and nvi Optional, I'm
happy to change, but lacking that (and I don't forsee it happening,
after various other "x should be the standard y" flamefests), I think
things should stay as they are. (In the Standard vs. Optional debate,
that is. I suspect the update-alternatives priority for vim should be
Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)