[lug] vi question

Nate Duehr nate at natetech.com
Sat Aug 16 21:53:23 MDT 2008

On Aug 16, 2008, at 10:46 AM, David L. Anselmi wrote:

> Do you mean the editor alternative is set to vim-tiny?  Or that vim- 
> tiny was the only editor with a high enough priority to get  
> installed?  (I don't know an easy way to see all the packages with a  
> specific priority.)

The vim, vim-tiny, vim-minimal, vim-full, vim-kitchensink, vim- 
makes_breakfast_too, and all this different vim packaging silliness  
has been going on for years, all the way back to when Debian and  
RedHat could be installed from floppy disks.

The main reason for the "tiny" version (and why it often ends up the  
annoying default) on Debian is that it could be built very small and  
used in the installer for all of their beeejillion platform variants  
and didn't need to pull in a bunch of shared libraries.  Works "well"  
for embedded machines, etc... supposedly.

I think there's different packages now for emacs too, but at least for  
a few years there, emacs was bold enough to just not care that their  
package was the size of a small super-tanker, since emacs is it's own  
OS, UI, and oh yeah... a text editor too.

Nate Duehr, WY0X
nate at natetech.com

More information about the LUG mailing list