On 7 July 2011 08:59, Miklos Vajna <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:20:39PM +1000, Russell Dickenson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Personally I would prefer to see another editor added to the 'base' >> group but I understand the reasons for this decision. Essentially you >> would only ever have to use this editor if you only did an >> installation of the 'base' group and something was broken and required >> you to fix a config file. The chances of not being able to install >> another editor are very slim and in those circumstances, elvis is >> available. > > Just to clarify, my point so far is: > > - we don't want alternatives in base > - a vi implementation is expected to be in base > - elvis is a tiny vi implementation
That's what I understood but thanks for making this clear. > I'm open to replace elvis with something else if later it turns out that > we have a better (and similar size, i.e. not vim) alternative vi > implementation. > > If you want to talk about the "edit of base" in the doc, please refer to > vi, the implementation name (elvis) is not really interesting. OK - it certainly makes sense to refer to it as 'vi' since that what's it is. References to 'elvis' would simply be confusing. > Thanks. -- May you always be Frugal, Russell Dickenson (AKA phayz) _______________________________________________ Frugalware-devel mailing list [email protected] http://frugalware.org/mailman/listinfo/frugalware-devel
