On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:59:18AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 12:40:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > I don't like downgrading the vim -> vim-runtime dependency since IMO if > > > a user apt-get-installs vim he expect a fully working vim installation > > > (including help and syntax highlighting). > > Right; but having vim Depends: vim-basic, vim-runtime; and having vim-basic > > include /usr/bin/vim from current vim.deb doesn't seem terribly difficult? > No, it is not of course. I don't have any particular objection on such > approach.
The advantage is one less version of vim to maintain, and that people who install the full featured vim don't need to keep a pointless copy of /usr/bin/vim.tiny. *shrug* perl-base / perl is in a similar situation; note that with vim-tiny (in whatever form) in base, it probably makes sense to include vim-runtime as standard too. > But still, people have complained in this thread about a size increase > of about 370 Kb (nvi vs vim-tiny + vim-common), moving towards vim + > vim-common would mean an *additional* 340 Kb size increase. Is this > still considered a fair increase by the installer/cd teams? I think the size increase complaints (at least so far) have all been standing in for when people just want to say "I prefer nvi". The size of base matters a little, but it's not an "every byte is sacred" situation. Cheers, aj (base maintainer, for those playing along at home)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
