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

Re: RFC: Replacing vim-tiny with nano in essential packages


John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> 于2020年3月16日周一 上午8:15写道:
> Hi Thomas!
> On 3/16/20 12:31 PM, Thomas Pircher wrote:
> > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> >> I would like to suggest to replace vim-tiny with nano as the default minimal
> >> editor installed with debootstrap and therefore debian-installer.
> >
> > Would you consider nvi as an alternative to vim-tiny? It is quite small
> > and is functional enough to edit the occasional config file when
> > necessary.
> Since nvi [1] does not suffer from the same regular build problems as vim,
> I'm perfectly fine with nvi over nano if this should be up for decision.
> My only goal is to avoid the d-i build problems in the future that the
> regular build failures of the vim package cause.

At least someone please adopt nvi first... we cannot introduce a
package into d-i
without a maintainer [2].

Besides, nvi does not have an active upstream.

P.S. Anyone know why we did not use the vanilla vi at the very beginning?

[2] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/nvi

Boyuan Yang

> > A user who does a lot of editing will probably install a better editor
> > than {vim-tiny,nvi} anyways. And it would minimise disruption to people
> > who expect some form of vi to be installed on the system.
> Sure. I just wasn't thinking of nvi when I wrote my mail :).
> Adrian
> > [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=nvi&suite=sid

Reply to: