On 3/16/20 12:31 PM, Thomas Pircher wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> I would like to suggest to replace vim-tiny with nano as the default minimal
>> editor installed with debootstrap and therefore debian-installer.
>
> Would you consider nvi as an alternative to vim-tiny? It is quite s
On 3/22/20 3:48 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:06:11AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> Debian Ports is affected by this problem in particular because we don't have
>> the cruft feature in mini-DAK [3], so every time I build a debian-installer
>> image and forget c
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:06:11AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Debian Ports is affected by this problem in particular because we don't have
> the cruft feature in mini-DAK [3], so every time I build a debian-installer
> image and forget checking whether vim build successfully on every
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" writes:
> I've always considered /bin/ed the most basic system administration
> tool, since it doesn't require a working terminal or termcap entry.
> It works even if you are using an ASR-33 teletype. :-)
>
> And at least for me, I find /bin/ed much more user friendly than vi,
try ssh into a windows machine.
the termcaps are all manner of fun.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 7:23 AM Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:34:10AM +0500, Lev Lamberov wrote:
> > Ср 18 мар 2020 @ 18:52 Adam Borowski :
> >
> > > Alas, our ed is basically:
> > > #!/bin/sh
> > > while rea
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:34:10AM +0500, Lev Lamberov wrote:
> Ср 18 мар 2020 @ 18:52 Adam Borowski :
>
> > Alas, our ed is basically:
> > #!/bin/sh
> > while read x;do echo '?';done
>
> That's not true. The ed package in the Debian archive is full GNU ed.
I'm not talking about functionality un
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:40 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> I've always considered /bin/ed the most basic system administration
> tool, since it doesn't require a working terminal or termcap entry.
> It works even if you are using an ASR-33 teletype. :-)
>
> And at least for me, I find /bin/ed muc
On 2020-03-18 08:18 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:50:01PM +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>>I'd disagree. vi is very newbie unfriendly. OTOH I expect people that
>>know how to navigate vi to be able to `apt install vi` without any problem.
>>*t
>
> My initial feeling was
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 01:38:34PM -0400, Peter Silva wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:40 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > I've always considered /bin/ed the most basic system administration
> > tool, since it doesn't require a working terminal or termcap entry.
> > It works even if you are using
fwiw... anyone who knows vi already knows ed, it's just the line mode
commands.
you save the : and that's it.
uh... fwiw, I had a mainframe typish system I had to admin 30 years ago...
being a mainframe, had no working TERMCAP, and the editor was ed. yeah, a
bit painful, the only command that you
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:45:35PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 16, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>
> > > Agreed: this is a very good idea since I really think that every default
> > > install must provide something enough vi-compatible.
> > I'd disagree. vi is very newbie unfriendly. OTOH I expe
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:50:01PM +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
I'd disagree. vi is very newbie unfriendly. OTOH I expect people that
know how to navigate vi to be able to `apt install vi` without any problem.
*t
My initial feeling was similar, but we're talking about systems that
only have min
Gunnar Wolf writes:
>> > Well, yes. But while mostly everybody who reads this will be
>> > moderately proficient with the basic subset of vi, I don't know
>> > anybody who'd know how to drive ed (I have done it, but I surely don't
>> > remember how to).
>>
>> It's not about the size of the editor
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dijo [Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 08:40:43PM +0100]:
> >> The only problem you mentioned was vim-tiny (arch: any) depending on
> >> vim-common (arch: all) and these sometimes getting out of sync on Debian
> >> Ports. I don't think that is a good reason to switch editors and ther
On 3/17/20 8:34 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ansgar dijo [Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:49:49AM +0100]:
>> And Debian ships vim-tiny, not vim, as part of the minimal
>> installation. That the same source package also builds other versions
>> doesn't really matter for vim-tiny.
>>
>> The only problem you ment
Ansgar dijo [Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:49:49AM +0100]:
> And Debian ships vim-tiny, not vim, as part of the minimal
> installation. That the same source package also builds other versions
> doesn't really matter for vim-tiny.
>
> The only problem you mentioned was vim-tiny (arch: any) depending on
>
(I'm not subscribed to debian-devel, please keep me CC'ed)
> It seems to me that this is a large part of the problem here. DAK
> presumably has that feature for good reasons, and if the Ports archive is
> missing features that DAK has, the Ports is going to hit bad situations
> that the maintainer
Geert Stappers wrote on 17/03/2020:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 07:40:40PM -0400, Peter Silva wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 7:27 PM Guus Sliepen wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 01:02:47PM +, Wookey wrote:
>>>
I hadn't realised how fat nano is (not the only consideration of
course
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 10:10:22 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> And the issue with vim-common being out of sync is not trivially fixable
> with Debian Ports as we don't have the cruft feature that DAK has.
It seems to me that this is a large part of the problem here. DAK
presumably has t
On 2020-03-17 07:36:23, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
snip
> > As far as priorities, whatever the project/ftp-masters decide is fine
> > with me. I've wanted to drop vim-tiny altogther, but that's been met
> > with resistance.
>
> Sounds like dropping vim-tiny and replacing it with vi from b
On 3/17/20 9:49 AM, Ansgar wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes:
>> And I assume, once we have fixed vim everywhere, it will be broken again
>> at some point due to the fact vim upstream is continuously adding features
>> which is why it's no longer suitable being an editor to be shipped in a
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM Ansgar wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes:
> > And I assume, once we have fixed vim everywhere, it will be broken again
> > at some point due to the fact vim upstream is continuously adding features
> > which is why it's no longer suitable being an editor to
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes:
> And I assume, once we have fixed vim everywhere, it will be broken again
> at some point due to the fact vim upstream is continuously adding features
> which is why it's no longer suitable being an editor to be shipped in a
> minimal installation.
And Debian shi
On 3/17/20 3:21 AM, James McCoy wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:06:11AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> The rationale behind that suggestion is that the vim package is becoming more
>> and more complex and hence more prone to build failures as can be seen from
>> the current build lo
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 07:40:40PM -0400, Peter Silva wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 7:27 PM Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 01:02:47PM +, Wookey wrote:
> >
> > > I hadn't realised how fat nano is (not the only consideration of
> > > course, but zile is very good on this measu
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:06:11AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> The rationale behind that suggestion is that the vim package is becoming more
> and more complex and hence more prone to build failures as can be seen from
> the current build logs [1]
I'd love any help fixing the test fa
so maybe we just add nano-tiny as an option to vim-tiny.
because we understand vim is not newbie friendly, but for all the old
hands, nano is not friendly to us.
234K is a small price to pay.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 7:27 PM Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 01:02:47PM +, Wookey w
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 01:02:47PM +, Wookey wrote:
> I hadn't realised how fat nano is (not the only consideration of
> course, but zile is very good on this measure and surprisingly
> functionfull).
You are comparing apples with oranges! The nano package comes with a lot
of help files and t
"Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
> +1 for nvi - it's a very good editor of last resort.
nvi is orphaned both upstream and in Debian and is quite buggy (probably
all minor stuff or less common stuff like non-ASCII support, but I
wouldn't count on it given the code). I would not recommend it unless
so
On 16/03/2020 12:15, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi Thomas!
On 3/16/20 12:31 PM, Thomas Pircher wrote:
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I would like to suggest to replace vim-tiny with nano as the default minimal
editor installed with debootstrap and therefore debian-installer.
Would yo
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:45:35 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>On Mar 16, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>
>> > Agreed: this is a very good idea since I really think that every default
>> > install must provide something enough vi-compatible.
>> I'd disagree. vi is very newbie unfriendly. OTOH I expect people
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 08:28:19 -0400, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> P.S. Anyone know why we did not use the vanilla vi at the very beginning?
Bill Joy's AT&T Unix vi wasn't Free Software when Debian started, so
1990s Debian had to use a Free clone like elvis, nvi or vim. According
to Wikipedia, the BSDs u
Hi Wookey,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 01:02:47PM +, Wookey wrote:
> If we are thinking about minimal editors, zile is a good candidate: no
> deps, remarkably small and functional.
The main advantage of nano over vi and zile is that it shows you how to
save and exit, always, so it is a safe choi
On 2020-03-16 12:42 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 16, Thomas Pircher wrote:
>
> > Would you consider nvi as an alternative to vim-tiny? It is quite small
> Maintainer: Debian QA Group
> Installed-Size: 1.605 kB
>
> I think that busybox still wins.
If we are thinking about minimal editors
Boyuan Yang wrote:
> At least someone please adopt nvi first... we cannot introduce a
> package into d-i without a maintainer [2].
>
> Besides, nvi does not have an active upstream.
Ack; or use busybox, as others suggested in the thread.
Hi,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz 于2020年3月16日周一 上午8:15写道：
>
> Hi Thomas!
>
> On 3/16/20 12:31 PM, Thomas Pircher wrote:
> > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> >> I would like to suggest to replace vim-tiny with nano as the default
> >> minimal
> >> editor installed with debootstrap and therefore deb
Hi Thomas!
On 3/16/20 12:31 PM, Thomas Pircher wrote:
> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> I would like to suggest to replace vim-tiny with nano as the default minimal
>> editor installed with debootstrap and therefore debian-installer.
>
> Would you consider nvi as an alternative to vim-tiny? I
On Mar 16, Thomas Pircher wrote:
> Would you consider nvi as an alternative to vim-tiny? It is quite small
Maintainer: Debian QA Group
Installed-Size: 1.605 kB
I think that busybox still wins.
> A user who does a lot of editing will probably install a better editor
> than {vim-tiny,nvi} anyway
On Mar 16, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> > Agreed: this is a very good idea since I really think that every default
> > install must provide something enough vi-compatible.
> I'd disagree. vi is very newbie unfriendly. OTOH I expect people that
Even if this were true (using vi is one of the most basic
On 16.03.20 12:29, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 16, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
>> `busybox vi` is rather limited, but is reasonable as an editor of last
>> resort; busybox is smaller than either nano or vim-tiny; full systems
> Agreed: this is a very good idea since I really think that every default
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I would like to suggest to replace vim-tiny with nano as the default minimal
> editor installed with debootstrap and therefore debian-installer.
Would you consider nvi as an alternative to vim-tiny? It is quite small
and is functional enough to edit the occasiona
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 12:29:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 16, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> > `busybox vi` is rather limited, but is reasonable as an editor of last
> > resort
>
> Agreed: this is a very good idea since I really think that every default
> install must provide something enou
On Mar 16, Simon McVittie wrote:
> `busybox vi` is rather limited, but is reasonable as an editor of last
> resort; busybox is smaller than either nano or vim-tiny; full systems
Agreed: this is a very good idea since I really think that every default
install must provide something enough vi-comp
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 11:06:11 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Thus, my suggestion would be to replace vim-tiny with nano in the list of
> essential packages
Neither vim-tiny nor nano is Essential.
They are currently both Priority: important, which I think means
debootstrap will usuall
On 16.03.20 11:06, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I would like to suggest to replace vim-tiny with nano as the default minimal
> editor installed with debootstrap and therefore debian-installer.
+1
Hello!
I would like to suggest to replace vim-tiny with nano as the default minimal
editor installed with debootstrap and therefore debian-installer.
The rationale behind that suggestion is that the vim package is becoming more
and more complex and hence more prone to build failures as can be see
46 matches
Mail list logo
