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
45 matches
Mail list logo
