On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:07:08PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: > Am 13.09.2014 um 12:58 schrieb Didier 'OdyX' Raboud: > > Le vendredi, 12 septembre 2014, 13.55:53 Joey Hess a écrit : > >> Theodore Ts'o wrote: > >>> One thought... there will probably be trademark concerns with > >>> "unix".[1] So we might have to choose a name for the tasksel task > >>> to be someting like "unix-like". > >> > >> Or we could just call it "standard system". > > > > Could we make sure the full "vim" is in that then? I miss it on every > > new installation and I'm quite sure that's not uncommon. > > At least vim-tiny should provide /usr/bin/vim, so a 'vim' executable is > actually available on the "standard system". I would be fine with the > stripped-down vim from vim-tiny if at least 'vim <filename>' would work. Many people were not fine with that and complained about unexpected behavior (i.e., their normal vim config blowing up in their face) when running "vim" from vim-tiny. That's why I made the choice to have vim-tiny stop providing the /usr/bin/vim alternative. You can see more discussion about my stance in #681012 and related bug reports referenced therein. As I said in my other reply, the intent of vim-tiny is to provide a vi command. The fact that it is using Vim to do so is the means, not the end. > At the moment I pretty often end up either installing full vim or > replacing 'vim' with 'vim.basic' on the commandline. Which is fine, because you actually want something that behaves like most people would expect Vim to, not something that behaves more like vi. Cheers, -- James GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <jamessan@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature