> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:11:52 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com>
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org>
> Subject: [lfs-dev] vim location
>
> I was reviewing /bin today and noticed that we do not have an editor
> there. vim is in /usr/bin. My /bin right now if 5.6M and vim is 1.6M.
> All of vim's dependent libraries are in /lib.
>
> ARe there any objections to moving the vim executable and the symlink of
> vi -> vim to /bin?
>
> One note is that this impacts BLFS as gvim would definitely link in a
> lot of graphical libraries, so in that case, we would need to make sure
> a rebuild there doesn't affect the text mode version of vim. We would
> need to reevaluate other programs that are installed, vimtutor and xxd,
> that probably are not needed in /bin.
>
> Another issue if we decide to make the change is whether it should go
> into 7.5 or wait for the next cycle.
>
> This is really a minor issue as I think very few people have /bin and
> /usr on separate partitions any more, but I was thinking "what if".
>
> Thoughts?
>
For stuff in /{lib,{s,}bin}, FHS seemingly only really specifies:
--
ed
optional
/bin
--
Tho', you do have sed, cat, &c as 'required'.
If you're having to recover from an environment where only the likes of
/{lib,{s,}bin} are present, and you can't simply boot from some recovery
media, then you're probably in enough of a bind that you'll need a fair
amount of skills to have recourse to - and that would likely include
being able to edit files using ed/sed/&c.
If you really want a vi-like editor in /{lib,{s,}bin}, and don't want to
get entangled with issues re X-versions (as for vim, elvis, &c) then
maybe consider Gunnar Ritter's 'vi' .
rgds,
akh
> -- Bruce
> --
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
