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

Re: Experiment: poll on "switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?"

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 07:39:59PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:43:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k.
> > > nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k
> > vim itself is only ~600kB, ignoring its dependency on vim-runtime; is
> > downgrading that dependency a possibility, so base could include the
> > regular vim binary plausible?
> The philosophy in the packaging has been:
> * vim-tiny -> has smaller as possible version of vim
> * vim -> ordinary vim
> vim-tiny has thus been compiled with a small subset of features _and_
> minimizing dependencies. vim with a standard set of features without
> caring about dependencies.

Hrm, I see the figures above are mixing .deb and installed sizes too. The
deb sizes are nvi=288k, vim-tiny=377k, vim=570k.

> I don't like downgrading the vim -> vim-runtime dependency since IMO if
> a user apt-get-installs vim he expect a fully working vim installation
> (including help and syntax highlighting).

Right; but having vim Depends: vim-basic, vim-runtime; and having vim-basic
include /usr/bin/vim from current vim.deb doesn't seem terribly difficult?
Or would vim-basic really not run without the stuff in -runtime? (If the above
means vim becomes an empty package, moving the stuff from vim-runtime into it
might be feasible/worthwhile)

> If there's the need of more vim features in the standard installation I
> would rather prefer to tune vim-tiny compilation including more
> features. On this subject, please note that adding gpm support will
> trigger the additional libgpmg1 dependency.

libgpmg1 is already in standard, and is 50k of .deb.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: