Re: RFC: Replacing vim-tiny with nano in essential packages
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 12:29:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 16, Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > `busybox vi` is rather limited, but is reasonable as an editor of last
> > resort
>
> Agreed: this is a very good idea since I really think that every default
> install must provide something enough vi-compatible.
> A simple solution could be to have busybox provide vi as a very low
> priority alternative.
I've opened a wishlist bug in busybox for this. It seems like something
that busybox should ideally provide if installed, even if there's some
reason not to include busybox in default installations.
smcv
Reply to: