James McCoy wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > James McCoy wrote: > > > I keep contemplating packaging ex-vi and advocating to replace vim-tiny > > > with that. After all, the intent is to have something providing > > > /usr/bin/vi, as one expects to have on a *nix system, so why not have it > > > actually be vi? > > > > The package is already done. > > > > apt-cache show nvi > > That's an odd answer to "why not have it actually be vi?". Sure, nvi is > a vi-clone, but it's not the actual vi. Whether that really matters > much to anyone is a different question. I guess as to whether it is the actual vi or not depends upon your perspective. vi was developed by Bill Joy released with BSD. But due to the licensing of Unix system BSD rewrote all of the license encumbered code for BSD. nvi replaced vi on BSD systems. From my memory I also remember one of the problems was the vi crypto included in the original vi code which back-in-the-day prevented vi from being exported. The crypto code was not included in nvi. Soo... If you are a BSD person then nvi is the "real" vi. > It's worth noting that nvi was the package that previously filled the > role for providing /usr/bin/vi, before vim-tiny replaced it. Feature creep? Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature