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
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
|
Details
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:
http://www.archlinux.org/news/336/
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: http://www.bostic.com/vi/ 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) Regards |
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
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
FS#11638AFAIK 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#10303But 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.
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.
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.
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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvi 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. :>
Regards
Regards
Because its purpose is exactly what you are asking! Splitting the vim package to avoid huge dependencies for users who don't need them.
http://www.archlinux.org/news/336/
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.