[SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

Succulent of your garden · 2026-01-26 13:31:48

So today pacman suggest this package to replace vi ? https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/ex-vi-compat/

I'm curious why is that the case and decision to do so ? Seems also the old vi package is no longer in the extra repos, and in the AUR doing a quick search.

Last edited by Succulent of your garden (2026-01-26 17:36:12)

Lone_Wolf · 2026-01-26 13:59:40

from https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/ … da99b3030d

Add package as replacement for the "traditional vi", which is unmaintained and no longer builds.

Succulent of your garden · 2026-01-26 17:35:32

Thanks for the info ^^

tirsek · 2026-01-29 02:49:02

Hmm, it builds fine for me if I add

CFLAGS=-std=gnu90

before the call to make in the PKGBUILD. If there's no plan to re-add it to the official repositories, I would consider maintaining an AUR package for it, except the main source tar file comes from somewere on sources.archlinux.org, and I'm not sure if that's stable enough to base an AUR package on, or if that file is likely to be deleted soon as well if the official package is no longer supported?

Vim is nice and all, but for really slow terminals, ancient vi is way faster. I'm sure that's a very niche use case though, and not reason enough to warrant a official package.

me4tw · 2026-01-29 07:22:39

Vim is nice and all, but for really slow terminals, ancient vi is way faster. I'm sure that's a very niche use case though, and not reason enough to warrant a official package.

No, there are many places of the world esp south america that still have slow network performance. Even where I live it was very slow until about 8 years ago. But I have had bad connection to VPS more recently than that like when it was getting flooded and I had to run everything under a tmux because otherwise the command would be killed when the shell randomly dropped out. But I think I have only typed vi instead of vim once or twice its not really on the top of my mind but that's just me maybe.
I do remember that back in the day the linux on the dedicated servers always had vi preinstalled, not vim, because you had to switch out of insert mode to move the cursor, which was a bit annoying, but I suppose there was a reason for it, more reliable or uses less libraries that can get borked or smaller filesize or something maybe.
but it looks like someone already made an AUR of heirloom-ex-vi-git maybe that is similar, but couldn't you just take the sources.archlinux.org content and put it on a github and then pull from github in the pkgbuild?
I currently use fish terminal so I don't personally have any concern with terminal speed these days anymore heh

Lone_Wolf · 2026-01-29 09:03:04

The last release of vi was in 2005.
Even the fork used in heirloom-ex-vi-git hasn't had a release since 2017 or commits since may 2022 .

Unless someone takes over and revives vi , vi is unmaintained.

tirsek · 2026-01-29 16:28:34

me4tw wrote:

but it looks like someone already made an AUR of heirloom-ex-vi-git

Ah, perfect. I couldn't find that one. Thank you.

It looks like that version also contains most of the patches that the old Arch package also applied to the Sourceforge source, plus a few other improvements, and the AUR package maintainer fixed the CFLAGS yesterday as well so it builds just fine now.

Trilby · 2026-01-29 17:31:53

Busybox still provides a minimal vi implementation. For such limited / minimal systems busybox seems like a no-brainer to me.

daidahan · 2026-02-02 02:32:05

I work with massive text files. At a bank that will never change its outdated systems. Only VI can handle them without freezing the terminal. I need it.

Last edited by daidahan (2026-02-02 02:32:50)

Scimmia · 2026-02-02 03:23:40

OK, but systems like that won't have an updated Arch, so it means nothing here.

Last edited by Scimmia (2026-02-02 03:24:20)

daidahan · 2026-02-02 03:53:22

Okay. But I'm a user, and my opinion is just as valid as yours. And I'm saying, I need it for work. It works for me.

Scimmia · 2026-02-02 04:36:36

You need it on your horribly outdated systems, maybe. This is the Arch support forums, we don't git a shit about that.

daidahan · 2026-02-02 05:08:42

Perhaps this forum needs people who think. I use Arch myself. I work. And I need the best tools to maintain the outdated system that puts food on my table and keeps millions of users believing their bank accounts are as modern as those apps on their phones... but they're just window dressing.

mithrial · 2026-02-02 07:13:14

Your employer is a bank and relies on an massively outdated terminal text editor to work?
I think the original developers of vi are still around, so your bank could throw money at them instead of relying on random volunteers.

seth · 2026-02-02 10:09:42

Perhaps this forum needs people who think.

"And that, Timmy, was the day when irony finally died."

I use Arch myself. I work. And I need the best tools to maintain the outdated system

I work with massive text files. At a bank that will never change its outdated systems. Only VI can handle them without freezing the terminal. I need it.

I can filter and edit 200MB texts in sqriptor…
What exactly does "a bank that will never change its outdated systems" have to do with archlinux?
Why does "a bank that will never change its outdated systems" have unusable software installed (if only vi works)?

I guess (because I obviously can't think) that you're logging into the banks system via ssh (please put the bank on the record so I can make sure to never deposit anything there) and edit the remote file via the remote vi (what re-raises the question what any of this has to do with arch) or you're editing the remote file with a local editor (and some sort of sshfs)
In the latter case try "vim -n" or control swap and backup location, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/163 … les-in-vim

WorMzy · 2026-02-02 10:21:19

Mod note: I think we're done here. Closing before we go further off topic.

Arch Linux

#1 2026-01-26 13:31:48

[SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#2 2026-01-26 13:59:40

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#3 2026-01-26 17:35:32

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#4 2026-01-29 02:49:02

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#5 2026-01-29 07:22:39

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#6 2026-01-29 09:03:04

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#7 2026-01-29 16:28:34

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#8 2026-01-29 17:31:53

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#9 2026-02-02 02:32:05

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#10 2026-02-02 03:23:40

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#11 2026-02-02 03:53:22

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#12 2026-02-02 04:36:36

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#13 2026-02-02 05:08:42

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#14 2026-02-02 07:13:14

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#15 2026-02-02 10:09:42

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

#16 2026-02-02 10:21:19

Re: [SOLVED] why vi is now suggested to be replaced with ex-vi-compat ?

Board footer