Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2000/07/03/04:12:37
On Sat, 01 Jul 00 18:23:54 +0100, you wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 06:20:08PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>Chris Faylor wrote:
>>> Is this correct? I'd asked for vim with termcap support. Is this what
>>> you mean?
>>>
>>> vim + termcap support should provide a standalone version of vim that works
>>> on Windows even without the /etc/termcap and more importantly without
>>> /usr/lib/terminfo/*.
>>
>>It does. I have checked that today. I'm working with that vim version
>>since several hours and I didn't see any problem.
>>
>>> Out of curiousity, does the '-b' option work in this version of vim? DJ
>>> had once reported that this was broken.
>>
>>-b works.
>>
>>What disturbs me is, that /bin/vi is not the same as /usr/bin/vim.
>>I would prefer only one binary with typical vim behaviour and a
>>symlink named vi. Those who are bothered by vim special features
>>are free to set compatible mode, IMHO.
>>
>>Michael, I would like to ask you, to change that.
>>
>>Any objections?
>
>I agree. I would rather have consistency.
>
>cgf
Sorry for answering late but I was busy this weekend with playing
Diablo 2 8-)
I put vi and vim in the distribution because Redhat & Mandrake are
doing this in that way and I am always stealing spec-files for rpm out
of the two distributions. Personally I only care for one thing:
/bin/vi should be a real executeable, not a symlink because it is in
/bin and I am trying to have things as FHS 2.X compatible as possible.
So I would like to make /usr/bin/vim a link to /bin/vi.exe (Strange, I
know; but the reason for that is the RPM-Packaging with /bin/vi
beeing a basic dependency and enhanced vim only beeing an addon.)
I am at work right now and cannot access sourceware via scp; If things
can wait till afternoon I will fix the package as soon as that I am
home, if not, give me a call, Corinna, I will email a new version to
you.
Michael
- Raw text -