On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 23:37:20 +0200 Tom Wijsman <tom...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:05:19 +0000 (UTC) > "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvice...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:22:45 +0100 > > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200 > > >> Luca Barbato <lu_z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > >>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant > > >> > > >> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim. > > > > It seems like everyone needs to "chill" a bit. Ciaran wasn't > > trolling, he was making a point. I'm sure everyone around here > > understood his point. There were no attacks and no "foul language", > > so can we move forward? > > Constructiveness does not rely on just making points, as replacing > nano with Vim is out of the context of adding bc back to stage3. > Editors are a world apart from a build tool, even more so from being > POSIX. In order to move forward beyond this point, that needs to be > recognized.
But POSIX does describe vi. That was the point... (And until fairly recently, texlive used to require 'ex' if you wanted to build it fully from unpatched sources.) -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
