Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in Unsupported. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!

FS#13109 - vi/vim package organization

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Sleepy_Coder (Sleepy_Coder) - Tuesday, 03 February 2009, 04:11 GMT
Last edited by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Monday, 09 February 2009, 19:34 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version None
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No


I was hoping that vi would be vi, not vim. Yet core/vi is Vi Improved... Another strange thing is that vim requires ruby and python as dependencies. After talking with a few people in #vim on freenode I learned that those are not required for it's operation. :> I find it strange, futhermore, that the article listed here says vim sources /etc/vimrc, but I had to symlink /etc/vimrc to my /etc/virc for my settings to be noticed. The article is linked here:

I moved away from Debian because of package names that were deceiving only to find that Arch has done this with vim?

1) The vi editor his here:
If it is too buggy then don't package it, but don't pretend vim is the same thing in "vi mode". It's undoubtably larger and probably slower. If a user commands `pacman -S vi`, they expect to get vi. I don't think Arch's developers should be making the decision of "waht they really want". What happaned to KiSS?

2) Since when does vim require other scripting languages to operate? So far as I know, Ruby and Python arent' required. If they are dependencies for plugins, make that a separate package or something. For those of us with older systems, asking to install another interpreter is like sacreligion! At least make it another package like vim-ruby or vim-python. And if the general user just wants all of vim and it's frills have a meta package called vim-full or something to install the lot.

I'm sorry if I sound callous or if these thoughts have already been discussed and I'm just reiterating over past woes, but please do something about these inconsistencies. The /etc/vimrc is definitely an issue.

I'm not used to bug reports as I usually switch distros when sloppy packages get in my way or go against my philosophy of how I think something should be organized so I'm sorry if this reads more like a rant than how to fix something. (if you agree with what I think needs fixing)

This task depends upon

Closed by  Aaron Griffin (phrakture)
Monday, 09 February 2009, 19:34 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:  See Xavier's final comment for details and clarity
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Tuesday, 03 February 2009, 04:33 GMT
Making python and ruby optdepends for vim (if they really are only need for plugins) would also fix  FS#11638 
Comment by Sleepy_Coder (Sleepy_Coder) - Tuesday, 03 February 2009, 05:08 GMT
I wonder of perl could also be considered for an optdepend. :> I don't wish to take away from the usability of vim. acl, gpm, and libxt all go toward some of the core features of vim. However, Ruby, Python, and possible Perl only go toward extra plugins. (I'm not exactly sure, but they aren't required for the core/vi package and that is vim). It would be much cleaner, especially for embedded systems that rely on as few dependencies as possible if we could extricate the frills from vim.
Comment by Sleepy_Coder (Sleepy_Coder) - Tuesday, 03 February 2009, 05:16 GMT
... into other packages aside from calling a package core/vi and then having it really be the core of vim. That's a bit dishonest. That's my main concern... The vim extras should be separate packages so users can choose how they wish to "enchance" it.
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Tuesday, 03 February 2009, 06:27 GMT
May i ask what exactly is your problem?
AFAIK vim can work like vi. If you dont like Arch's vi install a vi clone from the AUR. Theres more than plenty: elvis, nvi etc.
What you link to isnt vi either its nvi (a vi clone). Vi doesnt exist anymore.
If your problem is the dependencies dont install vim. Stay with Arch's vi.
If your problem is the configuration file is virc see  FS#10303 
But your bug report is pretty generic. You seem to have a problem with how Arch deals with those packages in general
but i dont get what your exact problem is.
Comment by Sleepy_Coder (Sleepy_Coder) - Tuesday, 03 February 2009, 08:14 GMT
My problem is I moved away from Debian because of strange philosophies about what to provide and under what name. nvi is the successor to vi (as far as I know), and one should expect to find that under the package "core/vi". I also have an issue with strange dependencies for vim as ruby and python are not required (possibly perl also). I was hoping to sort out the organization of this package but if nobody cares that there is an inconsistency here with what is and what isn't a dependency, then albeit, let's commense with the personal attacks, Grigorios. I was told not to bother the developers about this as it's what "99% of the users wanted when they asked for vi or vim". I don't see how this is hard to understand. I either want the original vi, it's successor, or nothing at all listed under that package name. I also expect the provided vim to be as lean as possible or it's extras in another package. Installing those languages just for what people believe to be the core of vim is stupid.

I'll post no more about my issues with it as nobody seems to care if it's as clean and simple of a package as it can be in the way it *should* be organized, but whatever. I'm glad I wasted my time. So glad to see the package had no issues at all.
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Tuesday, 03 February 2009, 08:29 GMT
No quite the contrary, i do care. Thats why i posted. If i didnt care wouldnt have bothered.
As a matter of fact i agree that the interpeter dependencies for vim might be better as optional.
If you think i was attacking you, you were wrong. Different opinions dont count as attacks. I just dont understand what exactly you expect from the packagers.
If vi was named vim-no-x11 would that be incosistency to you? Its just called vi instead of all that.
Nvi is not THE successor of vi. There is NO successor. Theres only clones/emulators with more features.
Regarding what a user would expect to find under vi thats totally subjective.
Slackware's vi is elvis. If elvis isnt installed vi is vim with x11, python,perl, and all the bloat. Only difference is the ruby interpeter isnt enabled.
If vim loses all the interpetor dependencies then it becomes a vi+x11.
Comment by Sleepy_Coder (Sleepy_Coder) - Tuesday, 03 February 2009, 09:14 GMT
Okay... I'm sorry about what I said. It just seemed like you were attacking my cause for bring up the subject. It's been a long day so I'm a bit ticked at the boss man. :>

As far as I knew, nvi was the direct descendant of vi because it was rewritten over a licensing battle. So one would think it's the closet thing to a successor that we have. I read this on the Wikipedia article, here: If it's in no way the successor I retract my statement and I apologize for causing such a scene over that. However, if it's smaller than vim, one might consider it for replacement of core/vi. I don't think vim should lose the interpreter support but it's quite operational without them as I installed "vi" and used my regular /etc/vimrc under a symlink to /etc/virc and everything worked fine. So I don't see where these interpreter are adding the extra enhancements to vim and would still like to see them in a separate package. By splitting up the vim package between regular ol' extra/vim and possibly some extra/vim-ruby and extra/vim-python packages we can go for a modular approach and manage to keep the size of a vim installation down with what the user might actually need. The same for perl even though that language is part of the linux standard base and it's kind of expected to be installed, it should be an optional dependency. :>

Comment by Greg (dolby) - Tuesday, 03 February 2009, 09:23 GMT
This is how namcap sees current vim package
Comment by Sleepy_Coder (Sleepy_Coder) - Tuesday, 03 February 2009, 09:45 GMT
How strange... did not know about namcap, or that ruby was a needed dependency. That's a mighty useful app... I was going to compile vim and check that out but you saved me a bunch of time. ;> Thanks. :) I guess now it just depends if someone with power cares enough to consider all this...
Comment by Sleepy_Coder (Sleepy_Coder) - Tuesday, 03 February 2009, 10:17 GMT
On another note, after checking with the Debian binaries toward the size of nvi compared to vim (as nvi isn't available in the arch repos or the extras I have listed), it appears to be only 668kb. Whereas Arch's extra/vi package (vim) is 28MB. :>
Comment by Sleepy_Coder (Sleepy_Coder) - Tuesday, 03 February 2009, 10:58 GMT
On another note, after checking with the Debian binaries toward the size of nvi compared to vim (as nvi isn't available in the arch repos or the extras I have listed), it appears to be only 668kb. Whereas Arch's extra/vi package (vim) is 28MB. :>
Comment by MzE2OWM2 (warriant) - Friday, 06 February 2009, 22:51 GMT
I have voted; It seems to be a nonsense for me, too.
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Saturday, 07 February 2009, 16:47 GMT
Which one exactly. This report deals with many annoyances.
Comment by MzE2OWM2 (warriant) - Saturday, 07 February 2009, 16:53 GMT
The first part.
Comment by Sleepy_Coder (Sleepy_Coder) - Saturday, 07 February 2009, 17:14 GMT
It appears there is no clear way to solve the "true vi" issue. I argue that vim should not be used as a vi alternative simply because a default install of vim in vi mode is over 28M. nvi would be a better choice. Though I'm moreso interested in making perl and python optional dependencies for vim. As Grigorious posted, the current configuration of vim shows only ruby is required. It would be great if people weren't required to install two other scripting languages just for a text editor which they might not even use editing perl or python source. The core/vi package is extremely debatable and I digress that there doesn't appear to be a clear solution there. I would hope for a smaller alternative but that is not the main issue, I think. :>

Comment by Sleepy_Coder (Sleepy_Coder) - Saturday, 07 February 2009, 17:17 GMT
PS: I'm sorry about how I started out this report. Reading from the beginning, I acted very unprofessional. There is no excuse for how dramatic or "hot-headed" I was being. I still consider there to be issues with how vi/vim is organized, but I hope those reading this far can consider it from an unbiased point of view. I did not intend to come off so strongly.
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Saturday, 07 February 2009, 17:35 GMT
Instead of whining about vi package being vim, do you actually understand what the purpose of this package is?
Because its purpose is exactly what you are asking! Splitting the vim package to avoid huge dependencies for users who don't need them.

This report is really confusing, someone should post an update with the valid annoyances. Here is my try :
1) rename vi to vim-no-x11
2) Making python and ruby optdepends for vim

I would suggest closing this very confusing feature request, and opening two new clear ones for these two issues.
Comment by Sleepy_Coder (Sleepy_Coder) - Saturday, 07 February 2009, 18:20 GMT
Comment by Sleepy_Coder (Sleepy_Coder) - Saturday, 07 February 2009, 18:23 GMT
After speaking with a few on the IRC channel no one wants to change anything. Doesn't matter anymore.