Re: RFC: Replacing vim-tiny with nano in essential packages
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes:
> > 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.
>
> 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.
just my 5 cents:
Any alternative to vi(m), which does not build, is a good from system
administrator view.
Talking about installer, nano/busybox/nvi all good alternatives.
Thanks.
Reply to: