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 [1], 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...
