Hi, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> (2020-03-17): > I think enabling vi in the busybox configuration is actually the best > approach to address this problem as this way we continue to ship vi > with debian-installer and at the same time get rid of the vim > dependency which is regularly causing headaches when building > debian-installer images for Debian Ports.
Can you expand on that? > It also seems that the maintainer of the vim package would like to > get rid of vim-tiny which he currently only ships because of > debian-installer [1]. > > Switching the vi implementation in debian-installer from src:vim to > src:busybox would therefore make both parties happy, I would say. I'm not aware of vi playing any part in Debian Installer (there's nano instead) but maybe I've been missing some piece of information during all those years? Digging a bit more in the mail you pointed to (and its references…), it seems you might be referring to the “Priority: important” field for vim-tiny. While this is indeed used in Debian Installer through debootstrap(-udeb), the former is not depending on anything provided by vim-tiny. We've had a number of packages having their priorities changed over the last release cycle(s), mainly initiated by Ansgar. I don't think vim-tiny is special here, and if the consensus is that it should no longer be “Priority: important”, I'm not immediately seeing reasons for the installer team to object. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
