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

[Peter Silva <peter@bsqt.homeip.net>]

so maybe we just add nano-tiny as an option to vim-tiny.

because we understand vim is not newbie friendly, but for all the old hands, nano is not friendly to us.

234K is a small price to pay.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 7:27 PM Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 01:02:47PM +0000, Wookey wrote:

> I hadn't realised how fat nano is (not the only consideration of
> course, but zile is very good on this measure and surprisingly
> functionfull).

You are comparing apples with oranges! The nano package comes with a lot
of help files and translations. You need to compare things to nano-tiny:

> Instaled sizes:
> zile: 365K
> busybox: 786K
> vim-tiny: 1547K
> nvi: 1605K
> busybox-static: 2045K
> nano: 2469K

nano-tiny: 234K

--
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
      Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>