Re: RFC: Replacing vim-tiny with nano in essential packages
On 3/17/20 3:21 AM, James McCoy wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:06:11AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> The rationale behind that suggestion is that the vim package is becoming more
>> and more complex and hence more prone to build failures as can be seen from
>> the current build logs [1]
>
> I'd love any help fixing the test failures.
I generally help with fixing packages on any architecture whereever I can
but vim has become rather complex and some of the testsuite failures
are a result of vim using Ruby which requires fixing the Ruby interpreter
packages.
And I assume, once we have fixed vim everywhere, it will be broken again
at some point due to the fact vim upstream is continuously adding features
which is why it's no longer suitable being an editor to be shipped in a
minimal installation.
> As far as priorities, whatever the project/ftp-masters decide is fine
> with me. I've wanted to drop vim-tiny altogther, but that's been met
> with resistance.
Sounds like dropping vim-tiny and replacing it with vi from busybox
would be a good approach to fix this particular issues, doesn't it?
FWIW, I'm still happy to help fixing issues in vim, it's just not very
high on my priority list at the moment.
PS: Thanks to everyone for the very constructive discussion!
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Reply to: