Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])

2013-01-30 Thread Cai Iru
2013/1/30 Mika Fischer > [Replying to arch-general since I'm not allowed to post to arch-dev-public] > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Alexander Rødseth > wrote: > > It's not a given that a vi clone is the most desirable replacement. If an > > editor that is not a vi clone should be preferred

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])

2013-01-30 Thread Mika Fischer
[Replying to arch-general since I'm not allowed to post to arch-dev-public] On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Alexander Rødseth wrote: > It's not a given that a vi clone is the most desirable replacement. If an > editor that is not a vi clone should be preferred, now or in the future, a > symlink

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])

2013-01-25 Thread Paul Gideon Dann
On Friday 25 Jan 2013 00:14:14 Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Allan McRae wrote: > > There is nothing stopping us dropping vi completely and just putting vim > > on the install media... > > I'd favor that (as a vim user who always gets confused by vi on the > install med

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])

2013-01-24 Thread Jason Steadman
On 24 January 2013 16:27, Paul Gideon Dann wrote: > On Thursday 24 Jan 2013 11:05:22 Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: > > +1 to drop vi. I cannot imagine why someone would want to use this crap > ... > > > > We already have nano in [core], so I think that vim could stay in > > [extra] (do we really nee

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])

2013-01-24 Thread David J. Haines
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:35:29AM -0500, Dave Reisner wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote: > > > On Thursday 24 Jan 2013 11:05:22 Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: > > > +1 to drop vi. I cannot imagine why someone would want to use this crap > > ... > > > > > > We already h

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])

2013-01-24 Thread Dave Reisner
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote: > On Thursday 24 Jan 2013 11:05:22 Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: > > +1 to drop vi. I cannot imagine why someone would want to use this crap > ... > > > > We already have nano in [core], so I think that vim could stay in > > [extra] (do we rea

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])

2013-01-24 Thread Paul Gideon Dann
On Thursday 24 Jan 2013 11:05:22 Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: > +1 to drop vi. I cannot imagine why someone would want to use this crap ... > > We already have nano in [core], so I think that vim could stay in > [extra] (do we really need 2 text editors in [core] ?). Vi is the standard UNIX text-ed