On 2022-10-11 16:30:42 (+0200), Andreas Radke wrote: > How comes? Nano is actually pretty well maintained and has seen lots > of updates over the past years. See
Yep, that's why I wrote, that it is at least still somewhat maintained (vi does not seem like it). :) My rationale would be, that text editors are not necessarily required for a working system and are rather basic tools (and one can argue endlessly which is the best hammer I guess :D). > If we want an editor in core beside "ed" at all is a different > question. Even ed is questionable, as it is only really required for `patch -e` (as optdepends) in [core] it seems. I have never seen a PKGBUILD make use of that. > In the past there was a rule to get a basic but usable system up with > base group and core repo (=cd iso image). On the installation medium we are able to define an arbitrary list of packages. For a long time the editor of choice seems to have been vim. Do you have a link to anything that was decided by the Arch Devs on the topic of what should be in [core] in the past? I guess I should have looked for that first, but I'm not aware of anything specific in the wiki at least. My rationale for slimming down [core] is to only have things in there that are required for running the most minimal Arch system and for building packages. > Vi is still part of Posix standard: > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ However, [core] does not cover all of the POSIX Shell & Utilities (e.g. looking at batch, asa, bc, etc.). Are we even committed to cover POSIX Shell & Utility compat in [core]? Best, David -- https://sleepmap.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
