vi versus vim

B-Con · 2008-05-11 01:21:02

Is there any difference between the packages core/vi and extra/vim in the repositories? They both have the exact same description and version number.

Allan · 2008-05-11 01:26:29

This should cover it: http://www.vim.org/viusers.php

It is essentially vi with more features.

B-Con · 2008-05-11 01:35:07

I know about vi versus vim, I'm not sure about the packages in Arch's repos. I was looking at the descriptions in archlinux.org/packages and saw that core/vi and extra/vim had the exact same description. But doing a pacman -Si on both packeges showed they do have different descriptions:

Description    : a highly configurable, improved version of the vi text editor

versus

Description    : a highly configurable, improved version of the vi text editor
                 (basic version)

Also, when I run vi the editor "splash screen" says it's VIM. Is core/vi actually vi and not vim?

Allan · 2008-05-11 01:47:15

Sure. They are actually both vim. core/vi is just the simple version without all the gui goodness. They got split into separate packages a while back: http://www.archlinux.org/news/336/

B-Con · 2008-05-11 02:56:03

Ah, OK. I was confused because vi (er, simple vim) wasn't sourcing my ~/.vimrc . So extra/vim's only extra features are X-related, then, right?

Allan · 2008-05-11 02:59:45

vim also has rupy, python and perl support according to the news item about the split. Not exactly sure what that means though....

B-Con · 2008-05-11 03:49:37

Me neither. I just want standard, basic VIM.

That news item also answered the root of my question, why ~/.vimrc wasn't being sourced. It needs to be moved to ~/.virc (or even ~/.exrc).

Arch Linux

#1 2008-05-11 01:21:02

vi versus vim

#2 2008-05-11 01:26:29

Re: vi versus vim

#3 2008-05-11 01:35:07

Re: vi versus vim

#4 2008-05-11 01:47:15

Re: vi versus vim

#5 2008-05-11 02:56:03

Re: vi versus vim

#6 2008-05-11 02:59:45

Re: vi versus vim

#7 2008-05-11 03:49:37

Re: vi versus vim

Board footer