[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 09:59:18AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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
> approach.

The advantage is one less version of vim to maintain, and that people
who install the full featured vim don't need to keep a pointless copy of
/usr/bin/vim.tiny. *shrug* perl-base / perl is in a similar situation;
note that with vim-tiny (in whatever form) in base, it probably makes
sense to include vim-runtime as standard too.

> 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?

I think the size increase complaints (at least so far) have all been
standing in for when people just want to say "I prefer nvi". The size of
base matters a little, but it's not an "every byte is sacred" situation.

aj (base maintainer, for those playing along at home)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: