Re: RFC: Replacing vim-tiny with nano in essential packages
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dijo [Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 08:40:43PM +0100]:
> >> 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.
> The vim maintainer himself would like to get rid of the vim-tiny package
> and I'm not sure there is a compelling argument that you have to use a
> particular vi implementation in a minimal environment.
> I wouldn't have a problem with vim if the package didn't fail its
> testsuite that often. While the last upload has helped a little, it's
> still FTBFS on five architectures , three of them in Debian Ports
> meaning I won't be able to build usable d-i images and several users
> have asked me for updated images already.
What about nvi? Yes, I just checked, it lists the QA group as the
maintainer... but if it is not RC, giving it more visibility can
attract somebody to maintain it (I won't volunteer, I know a bit
what's good for the project 😉)
> >> 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).
> It's not about the size of the editor package but more about using an
> editor which causes less build issues.
...and which still works for the users. Yes, ed _can_ be used. But I
really do not think including ed would satisfy a regular user in need
to unbreak a minimal system...