X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
From:	ericblake AT comcast DOT net (Eric Blake)
To:	L Anderson <lowella AT serv DOT net>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Curious about cygcheck -s' comment on vi
Date:	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:28:47 +0000
Message-Id:	<022120060428.29552.43FA96FF000B7F400000737022064244130A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

From: L Anderson <lowella AT serv DOT net>
> I ran "cygcheck -s" on my system and noticed the comment "Not found: 
> vi". A search of the web and Cygwin archives seems to indicate that vi 
> is not a Cygwin package and it doesn't show up in Setup.  Therefore, the 
> comment seems a bit like saying that oat meal is cholesterol free or 
> "Not found: elephants".  :-)

Actually, vi IS distributed by cygwin - it is a symlink created by
the vim package.  Once cygcheck knows how to properly follow
symlinks (and a patch has already been posted to get it closer
in that regards),  then the check will actually find /usr/bin/vi.
Until then, it is still a useful check, as POSIX requires other
programs, such as more, to use vi as their default editor.
Some people install a non-cygwin vi in some other location,
then wonder why cygwin programs behave oddly when
using the non-cygwin vi they have installed.

--
Eric Blake

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -