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

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

On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 12:40:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 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?

No, it is not of course. I don't have any particular objection on such

> 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)

Yes, it would run, as vim-tiny runs now. No help (just a dummy page
explaining what's going on), no syntax, .... But it would run. vim will
become an empty package indeed, but I don't think that would be a

> > 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.

Ok, not a problem then.

But still, people have complained in this thread about a size increase
of about 370 Kb (nvi vs vim-tiny + vim-common), moving towards vim +
vim-common would mean an *additional* 340 Kb size increase. Is this
still considered a fair increase by the installer/cd teams?


Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: