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

vim-tiny in base (was Re: Priority dependence)

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 04:45:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
> > The vi and nano debate was had a long time ago.  So was the nvi versus
> > vim-tiny.  It was decided that first-time users were not going to be
> > able to navigate vi, but experienced users would expect it.  I don't
> > know why people argued for vim-tiny over nvi; for a really rudimentary
> > base system, I think smaller is better.
> There was a long argument at the time which mostly amounted to, if I
> remember correctly, vim having a more active upstream.

FWIW, if I knew then all the issues that I've had to deal with from that
change (primarily very confused users, but also hassling with diversions
under a versioned directory and having to carry a non-upstreamable
patch), I probably would've argued against the change among my fellow
Vim maintainers.  I think the vim-tiny package has ended up being more
work than it's worth.

GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: