From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, DMARC_MISSING,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from saturn.prosalg.no (saturn.prosalg.no [213.236.139.233]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D49320EDAB8 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:00:19 -0600 (CST) Received: from dhcp-19597.ta-a.ntnu.no ([129.241.195.97] helo=motvind) by saturn.prosalg.no with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16kYoE-0000N9-00 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:02:26 +0100 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:27:01 +0100 From: Karl Trygve Kalleberg To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo observations Message-Id: <20020311172701.6e51feec.karltk@prosalg.no> In-Reply-To: <20020310031135.GA29666@powerhouse> References: <20020310031135.GA29666@powerhouse> Organization: ProSalg as X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.3 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 9e5d07e9-2967-4cd5-8381-ace998048d6e X-Archives-Hash: b019e9f5aa46e1713969df67a987658e On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 21:11:35 -0600 mrfab@arn.net wrote: > First, where the hell is vi? It is missing from > both the boot image and the base install. I > realize that I can emerge it, but having to use > an editor as horrible as nano, even just for the > initial config, was a bit obnoxious. We wanted to restrict ourselves wrt the amount of editors we crammed on the installation binary. Formerly, we used e3, which has pico, vi and emacs modes. For some reason (portability ? drobbins ?), e3 was switched out with nano. (In all fairness, e3 was a bit flaky, but being written in x86 asm, it was very small). If vi was included, it would be in addition to nano, as it is a reasonable assumption that vi-ers are capable of using nano, while the reverse is not. Kind regards, Karl T