Package: busybox Version: 1:1.30.1-4 Severity: wishlist Steps to reproduce:
- Install a chroot/container - Install busybox Expected results: - If a more fully-featured vi is installed (vim, vim-*, nvi, etc.) then it provides the vi and view commands in PATH - Otherwise, "vi foo.txt" runs busybox vi - Ideally, "view foo.txt" would be equivalent to "busybox vi -R foo.txt" (but this might require a two-line shell script wrapper or busybox code changes to recognise view as a command, rather than just a symlink) - If a more fully-featured editor is installed (one of the above, or a non-vi editor like nano, emacs etc.) then it provides the editor command in PATH - Otherwise, "editor foo.txt" runs busybox vi Actual result: - If a more fully-featured editor is installed, we get the expected result - Otherwise, vi, view and editor are unimplemented, even though busybox could implement them For editor, busybox vi should probably be a higher priority than ed, but a lower priority than any non-minimal editor. For vi, busybox vi should probably be a lower priority than any separately-installed vi implementation, on the basis that if you installed nvi or elvis-tiny or something, it's probably because you wanted to use it. See also <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/03/msg00221.html> (in which I thought busybox also implemented ex, but it appears I was wrong about that). smcv
