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 <firstname.lastname@example.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.