[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Drop VI from [core] (was Re: Winter Cleanup of [community])

[David J. Haines]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:35:29AM -0500, Dave Reisner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Paul Gideon Dann <pdgiddie at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday 24 Jan 2013 11:05:22 Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
> > > +1 to drop vi. I cannot imagine why someone would want to use this crap
> > ...
> > >
> > > We already have nano in [core], so I think that vim could stay in
> > > [extra] (do we really need 2 text editors in [core] ?).
> >
> > Vi is the standard UNIX text-editor.  Many admins rely on the fact that vi
> > is
> > available everywhere.  It really should be in core.
> >
> > Also, I know you might be referring to "plain vi", which is a completely
> > different beast to Vim, but the latter (which provides "vi" too) has a
> > *huge*
> > userbase.  Calling it crap is just bizarre...
> >
> > Paul
> >
> 
> Incorrect -- ed is the standard unix editor.
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.html
> 
> More seriously, POSIX says vi is optional for us:
> 
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/vi.html
> 
> Please remember that dropping it from [core] makes it in no way any less
> available.
> 
> I've no problems with moving vi as long as it doesn't disappear from the
> install media. It's useful to have around long enough until you can pacman
> -S vim.

This does raise the question of whether we should have nano in [core] in
the first place. At least vi is referenced by POSIX.
-- 
David J. Haines
djhaines at gmx.com