On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 09:21:45AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 06-Jan-06, 08:28 (CST), paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 07:43:07AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > Then the whole update-alternatives priority system is made pointless.
> >
> > s/pointless/bette
On 06-Jan-06, 08:28 (CST), paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 07:43:07AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Then the whole update-alternatives priority system is made pointless.
>
> s/pointless/better/
How? If you provide the ability to determine alternative selection base
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 07:43:07AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 05-Jan-06, 14:20 (CST), paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick.
> >
> > I was thinking that if you wanted another possible behaviour:
> > say that optional packages don't overide impor
On 05-Jan-06, 14:20 (CST), paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick.
>
> I was thinking that if you wanted another possible behaviour:
> say that optional packages don't overide important ones unless explicitly
> set that way, then you could set that policy gl
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:29:10AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 04-Jan-06, 05:08 (CST), paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Time to add a policy-alternatives hook to update-alternatives ??
>
> Huh? If the admin manually sets an alternative with with
> update-alternatives, it won't be overr
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, come on. vim-tiny entered the archive this week. The fact that we
> have some slow buildds and ports like hurd-i386 that are perennially
> behind is irrelevant to this discussion unless you can point to a build
> failure log.
Maybe we shouldn't switch t
On 03-Jan-06, 19:30 (CST), Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:58:49AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Such behaviour is pretty much standard alternative handling: the default
> > install is the lowest priority, and the optional variants have higher
> > priorit
On 04-Jan-06, 05:08 (CST), paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Time to add a policy-alternatives hook to update-alternatives ??
Huh? If the admin manually sets an alternative with with
update-alternatives, it won't be overridden by a package install. What
more does she need?
Steve
--
Steve Gre
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 03:15:01AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > I think the single-user system is the last one that alternatives handling
> > should optimize for, since the *one* person who's going to know to type
> > "nvi" instead of "vi", and the o
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I think the single-user system is the last one that alternatives handling
> should optimize for, since the *one* person who's going to know to type
> "nvi" instead of "vi", and the one person who can fix the alternatives if he
> doesn't like them, is the
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:58:49AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 03-Jan-06, 00:46 (CST), Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:05AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > If you agree with the change, do Stefano and I need to do anything
> > > other than swa
On 03-Jan-06, 00:46 (CST), Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:05AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > If you agree with the change, do Stefano and I need to do anything
> > other than swap vi alternative priorities and swap important<->optional
> > priorities?
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:59:46AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [Tue, 03 Jan 2006 07:55:06 +1000]:
> > I still think the vi provided by vim-tiny needs to default to compatible
> > mode and no-auto-indenting; but afaik it still doesn't.
> > > If you agree with the change, do Stefano
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:05AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 23-Dec-05, 11:54 (CST), Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The size of base matters a little, but it's not an "every byte is
> > sacred" situation.
> > Cheers, aj (base maintainer, for those playing along at home)
> So, it seems that
* Anthony Towns [Tue, 03 Jan 2006 07:55:06 +1000]:
> I still think the vi provided by vim-tiny needs to default to compatible
> mode and no-auto-indenting; but afaik it still doesn't.
> > If you agree with the change, do Stefano and I need to do anything
> > other than swap vi alternative priorit
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:05AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 23-Dec-05, 11:54 (CST), Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The size of base matters a little, but it's not an "every byte is
> > sacred" situation.
> > Cheers, aj (base maintainer, for those playing along at home)
> So, it seems that so
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:47:05AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> If you agree with the change, do Stefano and I need to do anything
> other than swap vi alternative priorities and swap important<->optional
> priorities?
On my TODO list I also have to split the vim configuration files in
/etc/vim
On 23-Dec-05, 11:54 (CST), Anthony Towns wrote:
> The size of base matters a little, but it's not an "every byte is
> sacred" situation.
>
> Cheers, aj (base maintainer, for those playing along at home)
Anthony:
So, it seems that so far as Stefano (vim maintainer) and I (nvi
maintainer) are c
Sorry for the delay in the reply, house moving ...
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:24:34PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Sorry, no insinuation intended, although I see, in retrospect, how it
> can be read that way; my apologies. I just used "Stefano?" to draw your
> attention and ask for your comment
Sorry for the lateness of this; Newtonmas and all...
On 22-Dec-05, 12:33 (CST), Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 05:41:45PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > vim-tiny depends on the 200k-ish vim-common too, so nvi seems
> > > about half the total size of
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:59:18AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 12:40:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > I don't like downgrading the vim -> vim-runtime dependency since IMO if
> > > a user apt-get-installs vim he expect a fully working vim installation
> > > (incl
Joey Hess wrote:
>
>[1] It's hard to say for sure since the i386 netinst CD is already too
>big for some installation methods and we haven't figured out if
>we're going to trim it back down, or drop it.
Ouch. I'd hope that the netinst should still work. As/when/if we can
drop 2.4 kernels t
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> But still, people have complained in this thread about a size increase
> of about 370 Kb (nvi vs vim-tiny + vim-common), moving towards vim +
> vim-common would mean an *additional* 340 Kb size increase. Is this
> still considered a fair increase by the installer/cd team
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 12:40:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I don't like downgrading the vim -> vim-runtime dependency since IMO if
> > a user apt-get-installs vim he expect a fully working vim installation
> > (including help and syntax highlighting).
> Right; but having vim Depends: vim-ba
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 07:39:59PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:43:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k.
> > > nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k
> > vim itself is only ~600kB, ignoring its depe
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:11:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [...] In the very same post Joey correctly added:
> > It's now only marginally larger than nvi [...]
> 167% is a rather big margin, isn't it?
Depends what it's a percentage of; if it were a perce
Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] In the very same post Joey correctly added:
> It's now only marginally larger than nvi [...]
167% is a rather big margin, isn't it?
> I asked Joey, as one of the installer maintainer, and for him the size
> increase is not a problem. If it is a pro
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:43:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k.
> > nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k
> vim itself is only ~600kB, ignoring its dependency on vim-runtime; is
> downgrading that dependency a possibility, so ba
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 05:41:45PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > vim-tiny depends on the 200k-ish vim-common too, so nvi seems
> > about half the total size of a vim-tiny today.
> Okay, so that's not "about the same". Stefano? If the above numbers are
If this is some kind of insinuation, ... w
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I much prefer vim-tiny over nvi, others have agreed (at least Frans Pop
> and Joey Hess), and not one person so far has actually said they prefer
> nvi over vim [...]
I strongly prefer nvi over vim. I dislike vim enough to
install vile when I need a bigger vi t
Dropping -project.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:11:14PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Current unstable Installed-Size:
> vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k.
> nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k
vim itself is only ~600kB, ignoring its dependency on vim-runtime; is
downgra
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:35:43PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:11:14PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > - vim-tiny is on fewer platforms than nvi, which seems as
> > important as size or accuracy of emulation.
> Vim still runs in 16-bit DOS, and I think it even has a functionin
MJ Ray wrote:
> The increase is between 101% for ia64 and 58% for i386.
> vim-tiny+vim-common is smallish by current standards, but
> neither "about the same" as nvi, nor "only marginally larger".
> Was there a maths error near the top of this thread?
The very top of this thread contained a forwar
MJ Ray wrote:
> Who knows? It's not currently built for as many. For hurd-i386,
> hppa and s390, nvi is a working editor and vim-tiny isn't. I
> can't remember what counts as support right now (URL anyone?)
Oh, come on. vim-tiny entered the archive this week. The fact that we
have some slow buildd
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I much prefer vim-tiny over nvi, others have agreed (at least Frans Pop
> and Joey Hess), and not one person so far has actually said they prefer
> nvi over vim--just that they prefer its defaults, which has been
> addressed.
Just to be completely unamb
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:28:23AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Who knows? It's not currently built for as many. For hurd-i386,
> hppa and s390, nvi is a working editor and vim-tiny isn't. I
> can't remember what counts as support right now (URL anyone?)
I'll have to punt on that one, since I know nothi
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 21-Dec-05, 16:11 (CST), MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Current unstable Installed-Size:
> > vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k.
> > nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k
> "Ranges"? Over what? Architectures?
Yes, arch
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:11:14PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > - vim-tiny is on fewer platforms than nvi, which seems as
> > important as size or accuracy of emulation.
>
> Vim still runs in 16-bit DOS, and I think it even has a functioning OS/2
> build, but it wo
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:11:14PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> - vim-tiny is on fewer platforms than nvi, which seems as
> important as size or accuracy of emulation.
Vim still runs in 16-bit DOS, and I think it even has a functioning OS/2
build, but it won't run on all of the platforms Debian supports
On 21-Dec-05, 16:11 (CST), MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Current unstable Installed-Size:
> vim-tiny ranges from 696 to 1852 with a median of 898k.
> nvi ranges from 560 to 1040 with a median of 648k
"Ranges"? Over what? Architectures?
> vim-tiny depends on the 200k-ish vim-common too, so
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have no sympathy for the notion of a "silent majority". If you have an
> opinion, speak it. [...]
Hard if you can't hear the question above the NOISE.
> wonder how many people will vote for nvi bacause "nvi is more like
> regular vi than vim". This is impo
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 09:14:16PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> (Please followup to -project if you're replying on the subject of
> Because this is certainly not the first time I was curious on the
> opinion of the so called "Silent majority" (if such beast exists at
> all), I decided to s
(Please followup to -project if you're replying on the subject of
holding polls like this -- the discussion on holding polls is not
technical, so does not belong to -devel. For opinions on nvi versus vim,
please reply elsewhere in the current thread, this subthread isn't the
place for it)
For the
43 matches
Mail list logo
