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

Re: Bug#155376: what is default editor in /bin

On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 12:51:53PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 01:28:43PM -0400, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> > On Sun, 04 Aug 2002 at 10:10:17AM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote:
> > > Is there any reason that nvi could not be moved to /bin and made
> > > eligible for "root default editor" status? The nvi package Depends only
> > > on libc6 and libncurses5, both of which live in /lib. Sure, nvi's binary
> > > is nearly ten times the size of nano-tiny, but if I can still mount my
> > > root partition, I'd rather use nvi than nano.
> > I second that...a vast population of Unix Users and Admins use vi or a vi
> > clone (like nvi).  When I started work at an ISP the first thing my boss
> > told me was "learn how to use vi".
> This is an old argument.  Please use the list archives to review the
> history of the debate, and the arguments posed within, before reigniting
> the discussion.

Yes it is old but my focus is slightly different.

> Binary size is a factor, but there are other, more compelling reasons not
> to make vi a rescue editor.

I have no problem elvis-tiny being rescue vi editor.  It is good thing.
But it can not be the only choice for rescue editor.  Also nano being
rescue editor (current) is not right.  nano-tiny shall be it.

Also I think these "resue editor needs to be given proper priority for

~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
 Osamu Aoki @ Cupertino CA USA

Reply to: