jamessan at jamessan.com
Thu Jun 8 15:15:17 UTC 2006
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 04:33:38PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 10:21:27AM -0400, James Vega wrote:
> > Alfie brought up the question of whether vim-tiny should install to /bin
> > instead of /usr/bin. Of the 3 editors that are currently "Priority:
> > important" (ed, nano, nvi), ed and nano install binaries in both /bin
> > and /usr/bin. I think having vim-tiny install to /bin would be a good
> > idea, even though nvi didn't previously do so.
> Uhm this raises even more questions, in case it belongs to /bin:
> - should it be named /bin/vim or /bin/vim.tiny?
> - in both cases, what we do to the alternative in /usr/bin/? should it
> "consider" the executable in /bin or not?
Hmm, good questions. That does present a possible naming conflict since
under the conditions listed below you'd probably expect 'vim' to work
which would require a /bin/vim. Yet, under normal circumstances there
would also be a /usr/bin/vim and which is invoked would depend on how
$PATH is setup.
> But, first and foremost: why it should have an executable in /bin
> instead of /usr/bin? :-) Is there a concrete advantage in that?
As part of the base system, one may expect to have it available under
more limited cicrumstances such as not having /usr mounted.
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan at jamessan.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-vim-maintainers/attachments/20060608/af58ef70/attachment.pgp
More information about the pkg-vim-maintainers