Hi Tobias! On 2024-02-05 10:43, Tobias Heider wrote: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:38:07AM +0000, Stuart Prescott wrote: >> >> The maintainer for the "nvi" package has indicated that he is unable to >> maintain this package for the time being. I'm marking this package as >> orphaned >> now. > > Looks like this is still orphaned over ten years later. > > As an active nvi user I would love to step up and help, but the biggest > problem I see is that the choice of upstream project. Since the original > is gone there isn't a clear successor. > > The BSDs all have their own forks which diverged over time (and those don't > build on Linux). > The other two options there are today are https://repo.or.cz/nvi.git which > d/control currently points to and more recently > https://github.com/lichray/nvi2. > > The first has a very low commit frequency (last commit was 2020, before > that 2016) and sticks very closely to the original source. nvi2 has added > new features such as multibyte support and is starting to receive bug fixes > and features from the different *BSD forks. > > I have been thinking of proposing a new package for nvi2 but maybe it would > make more sense to move this one to the more active upstream. It looks like > some of the issues we are carrying patches for in Debian might be fixed there > already and if not they seem active enough to merge our fixes. > > What would be the best way forward here? ITA and eventually switch the > upstream > or start a new package and let this one continue its slow death?
I think making the O bug and ITA and switching upstream is right thing to do here, maybe explaining the history of the package in README.source. I can't think think of a reasonable use case where nvi2 would not be a suitable drop-in replacement for nvi; if neither can you (knowing the editor way better than me!), then I'd say go for the switch. I'll be happy reviewing/sponsoring if needed. Cheers, Paride