Re: RFC: Replacing vim-tiny with nano in essential packages
Ansgar dijo [Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:49:49AM +0100]:
> And Debian ships vim-tiny, not vim, as part of the minimal
> installation. That the same source package also builds other versions
> doesn't really matter for vim-tiny.
>
> The only problem you mentioned was vim-tiny (arch: any) depending on
> vim-common (arch: all) and these sometimes getting out of sync on Debian
> Ports. I don't think that is a good reason to switch editors and there
> are other ways to work around that problem.
Agree.
> But if we really wanted a minimal editor: `ed` is still there with an
> Installed-Size: 116 kB and no external dependencies besides libc6. It
> also works without fancy terminal features.
Well, yes. But while mostly everybody who reads this will be
moderately proficient with the basic subset of vi, I don't know
anybody who'd know how to drive ed (I have done it, but I surely don't
remember how to).
> Or have debootstrap not install any editor. But if I remember correctly
> that idea wasn't popular.
I agree with those that would oppose. Having an editor handy is core
to be able to get a Unix system out of many unexpected
situations. Having an Unix system without an editor is IMO having a
broken system. Could make sense for embedded targets... but nothing else.
Reply to: