Re: RFC: Replacing vim-tiny with nano in essential packages
Geert Stappers wrote on 17/03/2020:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 07:40:40PM -0400, Peter Silva wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 7:27 PM Guus Sliepen 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
>>> 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
>> 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.
> Not yet seen in this thread, is the package vis
Vis maintainer here, thanks for mentioning it.
I really like this little editor, but I don't think it's a good fit for
what we are looking for here as it has a small userbase and bus factor.
Good news is that upstream is active again and a new release should be