On 05-Oct-99, 04:00 (CDT), Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree... Why does it [vim] have a lower priority in alternatives > than nvi?
I don't know. That's not what I remember from the discussion amongst the various vi and editor maintainers when we set the relative priorities, but unfortunately I cleaned out that discusssion just a few months ago. If I remember correctly, Dale Sheetz guided that discussion, maybe he can post the final list. What I remember as a general concept is that the package that is installed by default (nvi, in this case), should have the *lowest* priority wrt update-alternatives, under the assumption that if the sysadmin goes to the effort to install an option vi clone, they probably prefer that one. As to why nvi is "Standard" and vim/elvis/etc. are "Optional", it's because nvi is closest to a standard, classic, BSD Bill Joy vi, warts and all. Also, I think it's the smallest full-fledged vi. Certainly that choice can be argued, but I'm not really interested in discussing it: everybody has a favorite, and it's not worth changing. If there is *consensus* that vim or elvis should be Standard, and nvi Optional, I'm happy to change, but lacking that (and I don't forsee it happening, after various other "x should be the standard y" flamefests), I think things should stay as they are. (In the Standard vs. Optional debate, that is. I suspect the update-alternatives priority for vim should be looked at.) Steve -- Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read every list I post to.)
