You are not logged in.

#1 2009-05-27 15:29:31

phantom
Member
Registered: 2008-03-31
Posts: 3

vim replaced by nvi

I noticed vim was replaced with nvi. What are the reasons for that? Wasn't "vi" (the vi package of vim) lightweight enough? I personally hate nvi, it's way worse than vim.

If you wanted a more lightweight alternative to vim, why choose nvi rateher than original ex/vi? It's no better than ex/vi, but it's only twice the size of ex/vi and it starts slower. Anyway, I think even the most stripped-down Vim is better than nvi or ex/vi. Maybe you should do the same as Fedora, where "vi" is a lightweight vim without even a syntax highlighting.

p.s.
Since nvi is supposed to be more lightweight, why is it then compiled with perl and tcl/tk support? Why is static library libvi.a included in the package? And finally, why is nvi complaining:

./C: No such file or directory

every time I open it?

Last edited by phantom (2009-05-27 15:48:52)

Offline

#2 2009-05-27 16:01:32

karol
Archivist
Registered: 2009-05-06
Posts: 25,433

Re: vim replaced by nvi

Could you please compare nvi and super-stripped-vim sizewise?
For the time being, you can install vim, I can still see it w/ pacman and in ABS, so you may recompile it to suit your needs ... like I did.
Arch let's you install anything you want, nvi is what the devs chose, but you're allowed to disagree w/ their choices.

Last edited by karol (2009-05-27 16:03:52)

Offline

#3 2009-05-27 16:47:33

bender02
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2007-02-04
Posts: 1,328

Re: vim replaced by nvi

There was a thread or two about this on the arch-general ML and also a some bug on bugzilla.

If I remember correctly the reasons were
1) size (it's included in the install cd)
2) dependencies (it used shared libs with vim I think, so it pulled ruby and python)
3) some weird setup of vi/vim, so that people on #vim channel when asking for some help got "ah, you're on archlinux, they ship badly packaged vim, so basically we won't/can't help you"

EDIT: formulation

Last edited by bender02 (2009-05-27 16:50:32)

Offline

#4 2009-05-27 17:46:25

phantom
Member
Registered: 2008-03-31
Posts: 3

Re: vim replaced by nvi

The first two reasons don't make much sense to me.

1) size (it's included in the install cd)

Original vi (http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/) is even smaller than nvi and provides virtually same functionality.

2) dependencies (it used shared libs with vim I think, so it pulled ruby and python)

The "vi" vim package was compiled without perl/python/ruby. "vim" and "gvim" packages had perl/python/ruby support. And again, original vi has even less dependencies than nvi (no db).

Offline

#5 2009-05-28 23:15:20

karol
Archivist
Registered: 2009-05-06
Posts: 25,433

Re: vim replaced by nvi

@phantom
I've seen the bug report. If you're right, than it's a really nice work you've done.

I chose to compile my own vi(m) than experiment w/ nvi. Again, you can pick any editor, movie player etc. you like. Your arguments may be valid but the devs are more or less free to choose what to put in there. I think they're always trying to balance weight and features and not everything gets tested before inclusion. Looks like there'll be a new cron so you may want to put forward your arguments wrt ex-vi.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB