On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:56:16AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > James McCoy wrote: > > I keep contemplating packaging ex-vi and advocating to replace vim-tiny > > with that. After all, the intent is to have something providing > > /usr/bin/vi, as one expects to have on a *nix system, so why not have it > > actually be vi? > > The package is already done. > > apt-cache show nvi
That's an odd answer to "why not have it actually be vi?". Sure, nvi is a vi-clone, but it's not the actual vi. Whether that really matters much to anyone is a different question. It's worth noting that nvi was the package that previously filled the role for providing /usr/bin/vi, before vim-tiny replaced it. Cheers, -- James GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <james...@debian.org> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140915194645.go26...@freya.jamessan.com