[arch-dev-public] [signoff] vi-050325-3 (1 for each arch)

[Paul Mattal]

On 03/12/2010 05:17 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Thomas Bächler<thomas at archlinux.org>  wrote:
>> Am 07.03.2010 20:41, schrieb Paul Mattal:
>>> Please signoff 1 for each arch.
>>>
>>> This is just packaging cleanup, and should have no subtantive impact on
>>> the functioning of vi. Mostly just looking for an extra sanity check
>>> here, nothing specific to test.
>>>
>>> See FS#18215 for details. Highlights:
>>>
>>> * removed obsolete gcc bug workaround portion of du.patch, renamed to
>>> navkeys.patch
>>> * used make options rather than manual means of configuration wherever
>>> possible
>>>
>>> - P
>>>
>>
>> I used this, but when I use the arrow keys while in insert mode, it
>> prints "D" instead of moving around. Is that normal?
>
> That's the way crappy vi's behave on all flavor of unicies. It's
> annoying as hell.
>
> What is this "navkeys" patch? It appears to add support for
> home/end/pgup/pgdn. While I'm not a huge fan of that (patching and
> all), broken keys in shitty vi's is one of my biggest annoyances (at
> work I regularly use 5-10 machines with varying vi versions and 90%
> are just broken).
>
> If we're already patching the navkeys in vi and are ok with that, why
> not add arrow keys in there too?

Nothing has changed here in our patching of the navkeys, just in the 
name of the patch.

We had a patch before named du.patch, which included the navkeys patch 
and another patch for a bug in gcc (which has since become unnecessary).

This "new" patch is just the navkeys part of the du.patch (which was 
named after the patch author's initials) renamed to navkeys.patch.

I'm not in favor of changing the navkeys behavior away from what it has 
been without some input from Tobias, the maintainer, who may know the 
history and reasoning here.

Unless there is some regression, can we get some signoffs for this 
cleanup before moving on to changing other things in the package?

- P