7:37 a.m.
Hello,
could Fedora and CentOS containers for docker and podman come with
`alias vim=vi` in ~/.bashrc?
I would very much welcome it as I am used to type vim everywhere but
if vi starts instead I am happy too. I know that the solution is to
create a customized container but often I want to try something on
vanilla containers from the whole range.
Didn't want to write about this first but maybe there are more people
with the same problem.
clime
10:57 a.m.
On 10/10/20 7:37 AM, clime wrote:
Didn't want to write about this first but maybe there are more
people
with the same problem.
You are not alone. I had to set the same alias for Fedora CoreOS because
I kept typing vim out of habit and FCOS ships vim-minimal. It was
driving me nuts.
Maybe the vim-minimal package needs the alias instead? I have been
adding the alias on my end because it felt like a personal problem on my
end, but I am sure there are more of us.
Joe
--
Joe Doss
joe(a)solidadmin.com
1:50 a.m.
On 10/10/20 5:57 PM, Joe Doss wrote:
On 10/10/20 7:37 AM, clime wrote:
> Didn't want to write about this first but maybe there are more people
> with the same problem.
You are not alone. I had to set the same alias for Fedora CoreOS
because I kept typing vim out of habit and FCOS ships vim-minimal. It
was driving me nuts.
Maybe the vim-minimal package needs the alias instead?
This would break using Vim when vim-minimal and vim-enhanced are
installed (it would start Vi instead of typed Vim). To make it work,
vim-minimal would have to conflict with vim-enhanced, which doesn't make
sense - Vi and Vim binaries can exist together just fine.
In the end I find it incorrect to mislead users by default by telling
them 'Vim works' but Vi is run instead - Vi and Vim don't have the same
set of features, which may lead into bug reports caused by this mistake.
I have been adding the alias on my end because it felt like a
personal
problem on my end, but I am sure there are more of us.
Joe
--
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
10:15 a.m.
On 10/12/20 1:50 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
This would break using Vim when vim-minimal and vim-enhanced are
installed (it would start Vi instead of typed Vim). To make it work,
vim-minimal would have to conflict with vim-enhanced, which doesn't make
sense - Vi and Vim binaries can exist together just fine.
I have vim-enhanced and vim-minimal installed
# rpm -qa |grep vim
vim-common-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
vim-filesystem-8.2.1770-1.fc33.noarch
vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
vim-enhanced-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
and when I type vi it launches vim.
# whereis vi
vi: /usr/bin/vi /usr/share/man/man1p/vi.1p.gz /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1.gz
# /usr/bin/vi --version
VIM - Vi IMproved 8.2 (2019 Dec 12, compiled Sep 29 2020 00:00:00)
It doesn't look like these are existing together just fine. It seems
that vim takes over vi. Shouldn't these conflict and only one can be
installed over the other?
In the end I find it incorrect to mislead users by default by
telling
them 'Vim works' but Vi is run instead - Vi and Vim don't have the same
set of features, which may lead into bug reports caused by this mistake.
Isn't that the reverse behavior detailed above? I type vi on Fedora
Workstation it launches vim? I assume this isn't causing bug reports.
Joe
--
Joe Doss
joe(a)solidadmin.com
12:45 a.m.
On 10/12/20 5:15 PM, Joe Doss wrote:
On 10/12/20 1:50 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> This would break using Vim when vim-minimal and vim-enhanced are
> installed (it would start Vi instead of typed Vim). To make it work,
> vim-minimal would have to conflict with vim-enhanced, which doesn't make
> sense - Vi and Vim binaries can exist together just fine.
I have vim-enhanced and vim-minimal installed
# rpm -qa |grep vim
vim-common-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
vim-filesystem-8.2.1770-1.fc33.noarch
vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
vim-enhanced-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
and when I type vi it launches vim.
I'm sorry I forgot about this alias - yes,
there is an alias which is
applied when both - vim-minimal and vim-enhanced - are installed so it
launches 'vim' when you type 'vi'. I would say less people will complain
if something has more features than if it has less, so I'm content with
this alias.
# whereis vi
vi: /usr/bin/vi /usr/share/man/man1p/vi.1p.gz /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1.gz
# /usr/bin/vi --version
VIM - Vi IMproved 8.2 (2019 Dec 12, compiled Sep 29 2020 00:00:00)
It doesn't look like these are existing together just fine. It seems
that vim takes over vi. Shouldn't these conflict and only one can be
installed over the other?
'Vi' as the original project is no longer
(I'm not sure for how long)
shipped in Fedora. 'Vi' we ship is just 'VIM' compiled with
'small' set
of features (f.e. without syntax highlighting) to mimic the original
'Vi'. So if you run 'vi --version' it always shows 'VIM'.
> In the end I find it incorrect to mislead users by default by telling
> them 'Vim works' but Vi is run instead - Vi and Vim don't have the same
> set of features, which may lead into bug reports caused by this mistake.
Isn't that the reverse behavior detailed above? I type vi on Fedora
Workstation it launches vim? I assume this isn't causing bug reports.
You're right, as I wrote above - aliasing vi->vim doesn't seem as a
problem to me, but aliasing vim->vi as clime suggested can cause mislead
for users.
Joe
--
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
5:34 a.m.
On 13/10/20 07:45 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
On 10/12/20 5:15 PM, Joe Doss wrote:
> On 10/12/20 1:50 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>> This would break using Vim when vim-minimal and vim-enhanced are
>> installed (it would start Vi instead of typed Vim). To make it work,
>> vim-minimal would have to conflict with vim-enhanced, which doesn't make
>> sense - Vi and Vim binaries can exist together just fine.
>
> I have vim-enhanced and vim-minimal installed
>
> # rpm -qa |grep vim
> vim-common-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
> vim-filesystem-8.2.1770-1.fc33.noarch
> vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
> vim-enhanced-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
>
> and when I type vi it launches vim.
I'm sorry I forgot about this alias - yes, there is an alias which is
applied when both - vim-minimal and vim-enhanced - are installed so it
launches 'vim' when you type 'vi'. I would say less people will complain
if something has more features than if it has less, so I'm content with
this alias.
>
> # whereis vi
> vi: /usr/bin/vi /usr/share/man/man1p/vi.1p.gz /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1.gz
> # /usr/bin/vi --version
> VIM - Vi IMproved 8.2 (2019 Dec 12, compiled Sep 29 2020 00:00:00)
>
> It doesn't look like these are existing together just fine. It seems
> that vim takes over vi. Shouldn't these conflict and only one can be
> installed over the other?
'Vi' as the original project is no longer (I'm not sure for how long)
shipped in Fedora. 'Vi' we ship is just 'VIM' compiled with
'small' set
of features (f.e. without syntax highlighting) to mimic the original
'Vi'. So if you run 'vi --version' it always shows 'VIM'.
>
>> In the end I find it incorrect to mislead users by default by telling
>> them 'Vim works' but Vi is run instead - Vi and Vim don't have the
same
>> set of features, which may lead into bug reports caused by this mistake.
>
> Isn't that the reverse behavior detailed above? I type vi on Fedora
> Workstation it launches vim? I assume this isn't causing bug reports.
You're right, as I wrote above - aliasing vi->vim doesn't seem as a
problem to me, but aliasing vim->vi as clime suggested can cause mislead
for users.
I would also appreciate if "vim" ran the executable installed by
vim-minimal. I frequently type "vim" on servers I don't own and then
grumble that it fails and I have to run "vi" instead. It **is** vim,
it's just not installed with that name. Insisting that users call it
vi when we know it's vim and they know it's vim seems unnecessary.
$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/vi
vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc32.x86_64
Could vim-minimal and vim-enhanced both install the same
/etc/profile.d/vim.sh file that did something like this?
if [ -n "${BASH_VERSION-}" -o -n "${KSH_VERSION-}" -o -n
"${ZSH_VERSION-}" ]; then
[ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ] && return
# for bash and and ksh and zsh
case "$(type -t vim)-$(type -t vi)" in
file-file)
# both vim and vi are present
alias vi=vim
alias view="vim -R"
;;
-file)
# only vim-minimal is installed, expose it as 'vim' too
alias vim=vi
;;
esac
fi
Thinking about it further, the existing aliasing of vi to /usr/bin/vim
is too greedy. It only checks whether there's an existing alias, which
means if I install some other binary as /usr/local/bin/vi (or another
location that is earlier in $PATH than /usr/bin and /bin) then it gets
overridden by the alias for 'vi'. If I have a shell function for 'vi'
it gets overridden by the alias for 'vi'. Who decided that's what I
want?
The script above could check that $(type vim)-$(type vi) is exactly
/usr/bin/vim-/usr/bin/vi so we don't mess with users' expectations
unless vim and vi are both hashed to the paths that we expect for
vim-enhanced and vim-minimal.
7:38 a.m.
Once upon a time, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely(a)fedoraproject.org> said:
Could vim-minimal and vim-enhanced both install the same
/etc/profile.d/vim.sh file that did something like this?
if [ -n "${BASH_VERSION-}" -o -n "${KSH_VERSION-}" -o -n
"${ZSH_VERSION-}" ]; then
[ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ] && return
Why this? Why not alias vi=vim for root? We don't block root from
running vim (so it doesn't appear to be for security - vim already
ignores some things when running as root).
Rather than script hackery, why not just make vim-minimal and
vim-enhanced use the alternatives system? They are alternates for
providing a "vi like" editor.
--
Chris Adams <linux(a)cmadams.net>
8:17 a.m.
On Tue, 2020-10-13 at 07:38 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely(a)fedoraproject.org>
said:
> Could vim-minimal and vim-enhanced both install the same
> /etc/profile.d/vim.sh file that did something like this?
>
> if [ -n "${BASH_VERSION-}" -o -n "${KSH_VERSION-}" -o -n
> "${ZSH_VERSION-}" ]; then
> [ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ] &&
return
Why this? Why not alias vi=vim for root? We don't block root from
running vim (so it doesn't appear to be for security - vim already
ignores some things when running as root).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=168010#c2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=168010#c4
Rather than script hackery, why not just make vim-minimal and
vim-enhanced use the alternatives system? They are alternates for
providing a "vi like" editor.
--
Chris Adams <linux(a)cmadams.net>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Sérgio M. B.
12:08 p.m.
Once upon a time, Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com> said:
On Tue, 2020-10-13 at 07:38 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely(a)fedoraproject.org> said:
> > Could vim-minimal and vim-enhanced both install the same
> > /etc/profile.d/vim.sh file that did something like this?
> >
> > if [ -n "${BASH_VERSION-}" -o -n "${KSH_VERSION-}" -o -n
> > "${ZSH_VERSION-}" ]; then
> > [ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ] &&
return
>
> Why this? Why not alias vi=vim for root? We don't block root from
> running vim (so it doesn't appear to be for security - vim already
> ignores some things when running as root).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=168010#c2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=168010#c4
Umm, that's 15 years old, and not relevant anymore anyway ("if /usr
isn't mounted" hasn't been a supported thing in a while).
I've never seen anybody demanding POSIX compliance, especially at the
editor, and especially _only_ for root (which is actually confusing
behavior to me, that root and non-root get different editors when typing
"vi").
--
Chris Adams <linux(a)cmadams.net>
4:26 p.m.
On Tue, 2020-10-13 at 12:08 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com> said:
> On Tue, 2020-10-13 at 07:38 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely(a)fedoraproject.org>
> > said:
> > > Could vim-minimal and vim-enhanced both install the same
> > > /etc/profile.d/vim.sh file that did something like this?
> > >
> > > if [ -n "${BASH_VERSION-}" -o -n "${KSH_VERSION-}" -o
-n
> > > "${ZSH_VERSION-}" ]; then
> > > [ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ]
&&
> > > return
> >
> > Why this? Why not alias vi=vim for root? We don't block root
> > from
> > running vim (so it doesn't appear to be for security - vim
> > already
> > ignores some things when running as root).
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=168010#c2
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=168010#c4
Umm, that's 15 years old, and not relevant anymore anyway ("if /usr
isn't mounted" hasn't been a supported thing in a while).
I've never seen anybody demanding POSIX compliance, especially at the
editor, and especially _only_ for root (which is actually confusing
behavior to me, that root and non-root get different editors when
typing
"vi").
OK, so I suggest enable alias vi=vim for root
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim/pull-request/14
Thank you.
--
Sérgio M. B.
10:52 p.m.
On 10/13/20 5:38 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Rather than script hackery, why not just make vim-minimal and
vim-enhanced use the alternatives system? They are alternates for
providing a "vi like" editor.
I think that's the best option, too. Dominique wrote some suggestions
for speeding up bash startup, in May (subject: Speed up bash starting
time) and I think that eliminating unnecessary profile.d snippets
benefits everyone.
12:52 a.m.
Gordon Messmer wrote on Tue, Oct 13, 2020:
On 10/13/20 5:38 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>Rather than script hackery, why not just make vim-minimal and
>vim-enhanced use the alternatives system? They are alternates for
>providing a "vi like" editor.
I think that's the best option, too. Dominique wrote some
suggestions for speeding up bash startup, in May (subject: Speed up
bash starting time) and I think that eliminating unnecessary
profile.d snippets benefits everyone.
Stephen replied in the "Introducing vim-default-editor subpackage -
replace nano as a default editor if wanted" thread just two days ago
that fedora isn't so much into alternatives except if absolutely
required -- search by Message-Id if you can:
CANnLRdgYRUAWLJCvvfFDqPuRCk_GVOy1ie07wKfdRCQM4wvAKw(a)mail.gmail.com
My post back in May (ugh! thanks for reminding me about something I
didn't follow through..) was mostly about snippets invoking slow
subcommands when not really required (e.g. completion in /etc at startup
time vs. /usr at first usage time) ; a profile script that doesn't fork
isn't going to change very much.
At least not enough that I'd want to stick my nose in that :D
Besides, Zdenek seems to care about not confusing the two, and
alternatives wouldn't allow something like the alias he suggested with a
prompt -- I think that's a good idea even if a bit obnoxious for people
who know-and-don't-care we can probably live with that.
--
Dominique
6:16 a.m.
On 13/10/20 07:38 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely(a)fedoraproject.org>
said:
> Could vim-minimal and vim-enhanced both install the same
> /etc/profile.d/vim.sh file that did something like this?
>
> if [ -n "${BASH_VERSION-}" -o -n "${KSH_VERSION-}" -o -n
"${ZSH_VERSION-}" ]; then
> [ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ] &&
return
Why this? Why not alias vi=vim for root? We don't block root from
running vim (so it doesn't appear to be for security - vim already
ignores some things when running as root).
That was already there, I just copied what is in /etc/profile.d/vim.sh
today.
9:04 a.m.
On 10/13/20 12:34 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/10/20 07:45 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>
> On 10/12/20 5:15 PM, Joe Doss wrote:
>> On 10/12/20 1:50 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>>> This would break using Vim when vim-minimal and vim-enhanced are
>>> installed (it would start Vi instead of typed Vim). To make it work,
>>> vim-minimal would have to conflict with vim-enhanced, which doesn't
>>> make
>>> sense - Vi and Vim binaries can exist together just fine.
>>
>> I have vim-enhanced and vim-minimal installed
>>
>> # rpm -qa |grep vim
>> vim-common-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
>> vim-filesystem-8.2.1770-1.fc33.noarch
>> vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
>> vim-enhanced-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
>>
>> and when I type vi it launches vim.
> I'm sorry I forgot about this alias - yes, there is an alias which is
> applied when both - vim-minimal and vim-enhanced - are installed so it
> launches 'vim' when you type 'vi'. I would say less people will
complain
> if something has more features than if it has less, so I'm content with
> this alias.
>>
>> # whereis vi
>> vi: /usr/bin/vi /usr/share/man/man1p/vi.1p.gz
>> /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1.gz
>> # /usr/bin/vi --version
>> VIM - Vi IMproved 8.2 (2019 Dec 12, compiled Sep 29 2020 00:00:00)
>>
>> It doesn't look like these are existing together just fine. It seems
>> that vim takes over vi. Shouldn't these conflict and only one can be
>> installed over the other?
> 'Vi' as the original project is no longer (I'm not sure for how long)
> shipped in Fedora. 'Vi' we ship is just 'VIM' compiled with
'small' set
> of features (f.e. without syntax highlighting) to mimic the original
> 'Vi'. So if you run 'vi --version' it always shows 'VIM'.
>>
>>> In the end I find it incorrect to mislead users by default by telling
>>> them 'Vim works' but Vi is run instead - Vi and Vim don't have
the
>>> same
>>> set of features, which may lead into bug reports caused by this
>>> mistake.
>>
>> Isn't that the reverse behavior detailed above? I type vi on Fedora
>> Workstation it launches vim? I assume this isn't causing bug reports.
> You're right, as I wrote above - aliasing vi->vim doesn't seem as a
> problem to me, but aliasing vim->vi as clime suggested can cause mislead
> for users.
I would also appreciate if "vim" ran the executable installed by
vim-minimal. I frequently type "vim" on servers I don't own and then
grumble that it fails and I have to run "vi" instead. It **is** vim,
it's just not installed with that name. Insisting that users call it
vi when we know it's vim and they know it's vim seems unnecessary.
It's Vim but with a different set of features - VIM compiled as Vi
binary is trying to be small, kind of simulate Vi behavior without
setting 'compatible'.
Since you know it has less features, good for you. But unfortunately,
not all users know - there was already a report about Vim missing
highlighting, and the reporter was running /usr/bin/vi. So my aim is to
prevent such a report.
$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/vi
vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc32.x86_64
Could vim-minimal and vim-enhanced both install the same
/etc/profile.d/vim.sh file that did something like this?
Installing the same file
would mean to set conflicts between those two
package, wouldn't it? Or would you mind explaining how to achieve it?
if [ -n "${BASH_VERSION-}" -o -n "${KSH_VERSION-}" -o -n
"${ZSH_VERSION-}" ]; then
[ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ] && return
# for bash and and ksh and zsh
case "$(type -t vim)-$(type -t vi)" in
file-file)
# both vim and vi are present
alias vi=vim
alias view="vim -R"
;;
-file)
# only vim-minimal is installed, expose it as 'vim' too
alias vim=vi
;;
esac
fi
Looks good, although it doesn't touch the problem mistaking Vi and Vim
as I said before. I tried to come up with a little bash script which
will mention it really runs vi instead of typed vim (just the important
snippet):
alias vim="read -rep $'No vim found, using vi, press ENTER to
continue\n' -n1 -t 20 -s && vi"
This can be add into bash profile instead of 'alias vim=vi' when only
vim-minimal is installed.
Does it work for our case? IMO only problem would be with scripting, but
scripts which depend on vim and run on machine without vim-enhanced are
broken even now, so it shouldn't be a problem here.
--
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
9:26 a.m.
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 16:14, Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 10/13/20 12:34 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 13/10/20 07:45 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/20 5:15 PM, Joe Doss wrote:
>>> On 10/12/20 1:50 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>>>> This would break using Vim when vim-minimal and vim-enhanced are
>>>> installed (it would start Vi instead of typed Vim). To make it work,
>>>> vim-minimal would have to conflict with vim-enhanced, which doesn't
>>>> make
>>>> sense - Vi and Vim binaries can exist together just fine.
>>>
>>> I have vim-enhanced and vim-minimal installed
>>>
>>> # rpm -qa |grep vim
>>> vim-common-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
>>> vim-filesystem-8.2.1770-1.fc33.noarch
>>> vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
>>> vim-enhanced-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
>>>
>>> and when I type vi it launches vim.
>> I'm sorry I forgot about this alias - yes, there is an alias which is
>> applied when both - vim-minimal and vim-enhanced - are installed so it
>> launches 'vim' when you type 'vi'. I would say less people will
complain
>> if something has more features than if it has less, so I'm content with
>> this alias.
>>>
>>> # whereis vi
>>> vi: /usr/bin/vi /usr/share/man/man1p/vi.1p.gz
>>> /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1.gz
>>> # /usr/bin/vi --version
>>> VIM - Vi IMproved 8.2 (2019 Dec 12, compiled Sep 29 2020 00:00:00)
>>>
>>> It doesn't look like these are existing together just fine. It seems
>>> that vim takes over vi. Shouldn't these conflict and only one can be
>>> installed over the other?
>> 'Vi' as the original project is no longer (I'm not sure for how
long)
>> shipped in Fedora. 'Vi' we ship is just 'VIM' compiled with
'small' set
>> of features (f.e. without syntax highlighting) to mimic the original
>> 'Vi'. So if you run 'vi --version' it always shows
'VIM'.
>>>
>>>> In the end I find it incorrect to mislead users by default by telling
>>>> them 'Vim works' but Vi is run instead - Vi and Vim don't
have the
>>>> same
>>>> set of features, which may lead into bug reports caused by this
>>>> mistake.
>>>
>>> Isn't that the reverse behavior detailed above? I type vi on Fedora
>>> Workstation it launches vim? I assume this isn't causing bug reports.
>> You're right, as I wrote above - aliasing vi->vim doesn't seem as a
>> problem to me, but aliasing vim->vi as clime suggested can cause mislead
>> for users.
>
> I would also appreciate if "vim" ran the executable installed by
> vim-minimal. I frequently type "vim" on servers I don't own and then
> grumble that it fails and I have to run "vi" instead. It **is** vim,
> it's just not installed with that name. Insisting that users call it
> vi when we know it's vim and they know it's vim seems unnecessary.
It's Vim but with a different set of features - VIM compiled as Vi
binary is trying to be small, kind of simulate Vi behavior without
setting 'compatible'.
Since you know it has less features, good for you. But unfortunately,
not all users know - there was already a report about Vim missing
highlighting, and the reporter was running /usr/bin/vi. So my aim is to
prevent such a report.
>
> $ rpm -qf /usr/bin/vi
> vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc32.x86_64
>
> Could vim-minimal and vim-enhanced both install the same
> /etc/profile.d/vim.sh file that did something like this?
Installing the same file would mean to set conflicts between those two
package, wouldn't it? Or would you mind explaining how to achieve it?
>
> if [ -n "${BASH_VERSION-}" -o -n "${KSH_VERSION-}" -o -n
> "${ZSH_VERSION-}" ]; then
> [ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ] &&
return
> # for bash and and ksh and zsh
> case "$(type -t vim)-$(type -t vi)" in
> file-file)
> # both vim and vi are present
> alias vi=vim
> alias view="vim -R"
> ;;
> -file)
> # only vim-minimal is installed, expose it as 'vim' too
> alias vim=vi
> ;;
> esac
> fi
>
Looks good, although it doesn't touch the problem mistaking Vi and Vim
as I said before. I tried to come up with a little bash script which
will mention it really runs vi instead of typed vim (just the important
snippet):
alias vim="read -rep $'No vim found, using vi, press ENTER to
continue\n' -n1 -t 20 -s && vi"
This is OK.
Thanks for considering
clime
>
> This can be add into bash profile instead of 'alias vim=vi' when only
> vim-minimal is installed.
>
> Does it work for our case? IMO only problem would be with scripting, but
> scripts which depend on vim and run on machine without vim-enhanced are
> broken even now, so it shouldn't be a problem here.
>
> --
> Zdenek Dohnal
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
6:23 a.m.
On 13/10/20 16:04 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
On 10/13/20 12:34 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 13/10/20 07:45 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/20 5:15 PM, Joe Doss wrote:
>>> On 10/12/20 1:50 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>>>> This would break using Vim when vim-minimal and vim-enhanced are
>>>> installed (it would start Vi instead of typed Vim). To make it work,
>>>> vim-minimal would have to conflict with vim-enhanced, which doesn't
>>>> make
>>>> sense - Vi and Vim binaries can exist together just fine.
>>>
>>> I have vim-enhanced and vim-minimal installed
>>>
>>> # rpm -qa |grep vim
>>> vim-common-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
>>> vim-filesystem-8.2.1770-1.fc33.noarch
>>> vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
>>> vim-enhanced-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
>>>
>>> and when I type vi it launches vim.
>> I'm sorry I forgot about this alias - yes, there is an alias which is
>> applied when both - vim-minimal and vim-enhanced - are installed so it
>> launches 'vim' when you type 'vi'. I would say less people will
complain
>> if something has more features than if it has less, so I'm content with
>> this alias.
>>>
>>> # whereis vi
>>> vi: /usr/bin/vi /usr/share/man/man1p/vi.1p.gz
>>> /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1.gz
>>> # /usr/bin/vi --version
>>> VIM - Vi IMproved 8.2 (2019 Dec 12, compiled Sep 29 2020 00:00:00)
>>>
>>> It doesn't look like these are existing together just fine. It seems
>>> that vim takes over vi. Shouldn't these conflict and only one can be
>>> installed over the other?
>> 'Vi' as the original project is no longer (I'm not sure for how
long)
>> shipped in Fedora. 'Vi' we ship is just 'VIM' compiled with
'small' set
>> of features (f.e. without syntax highlighting) to mimic the original
>> 'Vi'. So if you run 'vi --version' it always shows
'VIM'.
>>>
>>>> In the end I find it incorrect to mislead users by default by telling
>>>> them 'Vim works' but Vi is run instead - Vi and Vim don't
have the
>>>> same
>>>> set of features, which may lead into bug reports caused by this
>>>> mistake.
>>>
>>> Isn't that the reverse behavior detailed above? I type vi on Fedora
>>> Workstation it launches vim? I assume this isn't causing bug reports.
>> You're right, as I wrote above - aliasing vi->vim doesn't seem as a
>> problem to me, but aliasing vim->vi as clime suggested can cause mislead
>> for users.
>
> I would also appreciate if "vim" ran the executable installed by
> vim-minimal. I frequently type "vim" on servers I don't own and then
> grumble that it fails and I have to run "vi" instead. It **is** vim,
> it's just not installed with that name. Insisting that users call it
> vi when we know it's vim and they know it's vim seems unnecessary.
It's Vim but with a different set of features - VIM compiled as Vi
binary is trying to be small, kind of simulate Vi behavior without
setting 'compatible'.
Since you know it has less features, good for you. But unfortunately,
not all users know - there was already a report about Vim missing
highlighting, and the reporter was running /usr/bin/vi. So my aim is to
prevent such a report.
>
> $ rpm -qf /usr/bin/vi
> vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc32.x86_64
>
> Could vim-minimal and vim-enhanced both install the same
> /etc/profile.d/vim.sh file that did something like this?
Installing the same file would mean to set conflicts between those two
package, wouldn't it? Or would you mind explaining how to achieve it?
RPM allows a file to be owned by more than one package. Fedora has
allowed this for eight years:
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/138
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_dire...
The file would be owned by both packages, and only removed if both
packages get removed. That means it would be present if at least one
of them was installed.
>
> if [ -n "${BASH_VERSION-}" -o -n "${KSH_VERSION-}" -o -n
> "${ZSH_VERSION-}" ]; then
> Â [ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ] &&
return
> Â # for bash and and ksh and zsh
> Â case "$(type -t vim)-$(type -t vi)" in
> Â Â Â file-file)
> Â Â Â Â Â # both vim and vi are present
> Â Â Â Â Â alias vi=vim
> Â Â Â Â Â alias view="vim -R"
> Â Â Â Â Â ;;
> Â Â Â -file)
> Â Â Â Â Â # only vim-minimal is installed, expose it as 'vim' too
> Â Â Â Â Â alias vim=vi
> Â Â Â Â Â ;;
> Â esac
> fi
>
Looks good, although it doesn't touch the problem mistaking Vi and Vim
as I said before. I tried to come up with a little bash script which
will mention it really runs vi instead of typed vim (just the important
snippet):
alias vim="read -rep $'No vim found, using vi, press ENTER to
continue\n' -n1 -t 20 -s && vi"
This can be add into bash profile instead of 'alias vim=vi' when only
vim-minimal is installed.
Does it work for our case? IMO only problem would be with scripting, but
scripts which depend on vim and run on machine without vim-enhanced are
broken even now, so it shouldn't be a problem here.
That would work for me.
8:30 a.m.
I have just noticed in f33 container, this change was implemented:
[root@9c06602a8aa6 ~]# vim /etc/yum.repos.d/x.repo
No vim found, using vi, press ENTER to continue
It's much much better, thank you a lot to the maintainer (probably Zdenek)!
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 13:29, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> On 13/10/20 16:04 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> >On 10/13/20 12:34 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >> On 13/10/20 07:45 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 10/12/20 5:15 PM, Joe Doss wrote:
> >>>> On 10/12/20 1:50 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> >>>>> This would break using Vim when vim-minimal and vim-enhanced
are
> >>>>> installed (it would start Vi instead of typed Vim). To make it
work,
> >>>>> vim-minimal would have to conflict with vim-enhanced, which
doesn't
> >>>>> make
> >>>>> sense - Vi and Vim binaries can exist together just fine.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have vim-enhanced and vim-minimal installed
> >>>>
> >>>> # rpm -qa |grep vim
> >>>> vim-common-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
> >>>> vim-filesystem-8.2.1770-1.fc33.noarch
> >>>> vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
> >>>> vim-enhanced-8.2.1770-1.fc33.x86_64
> >>>>
> >>>> and when I type vi it launches vim.
> >>> I'm sorry I forgot about this alias - yes, there is an alias which
is
> >>> applied when both - vim-minimal and vim-enhanced - are installed so it
> >>> launches 'vim' when you type 'vi'. I would say less
people will complain
> >>> if something has more features than if it has less, so I'm content
with
> >>> this alias.
> >>>>
> >>>> # whereis vi
> >>>> vi: /usr/bin/vi /usr/share/man/man1p/vi.1p.gz
> >>>> /usr/share/man/man1/vi.1.gz
> >>>> # /usr/bin/vi --version
> >>>> VIM - Vi IMproved 8.2 (2019 Dec 12, compiled Sep 29 2020 00:00:00)
> >>>>
> >>>> It doesn't look like these are existing together just fine. It
seems
> >>>> that vim takes over vi. Shouldn't these conflict and only one
can be
> >>>> installed over the other?
> >>> 'Vi' as the original project is no longer (I'm not sure for
how long)
> >>> shipped in Fedora. 'Vi' we ship is just 'VIM' compiled
with 'small' set
> >>> of features (f.e. without syntax highlighting) to mimic the original
> >>> 'Vi'. So if you run 'vi --version' it always shows
'VIM'.
> >>>>
> >>>>> In the end I find it incorrect to mislead users by default by
telling
> >>>>> them 'Vim works' but Vi is run instead - Vi and Vim
don't have the
> >>>>> same
> >>>>> set of features, which may lead into bug reports caused by this
> >>>>> mistake.
> >>>>
> >>>> Isn't that the reverse behavior detailed above? I type vi on
Fedora
> >>>> Workstation it launches vim? I assume this isn't causing bug
reports.
> >>> You're right, as I wrote above - aliasing vi->vim doesn't
seem as a
> >>> problem to me, but aliasing vim->vi as clime suggested can cause
mislead
> >>> for users.
> >>
> >> I would also appreciate if "vim" ran the executable installed by
> >> vim-minimal. I frequently type "vim" on servers I don't own
and then
> >> grumble that it fails and I have to run "vi" instead. It **is**
vim,
> >> it's just not installed with that name. Insisting that users call it
> >> vi when we know it's vim and they know it's vim seems unnecessary.
> >
> >It's Vim but with a different set of features - VIM compiled as Vi
> >binary is trying to be small, kind of simulate Vi behavior without
> >setting 'compatible'.
> >
> >Since you know it has less features, good for you. But unfortunately,
> >not all users know - there was already a report about Vim missing
> >highlighting, and the reporter was running /usr/bin/vi. So my aim is to
> >prevent such a report.
> >
> >>
> >> $ rpm -qf /usr/bin/vi
> >> vim-minimal-8.2.1770-1.fc32.x86_64
> >>
> >> Could vim-minimal and vim-enhanced both install the same
> >> /etc/profile.d/vim.sh file that did something like this?
> >Installing the same file would mean to set conflicts between those two
> >package, wouldn't it? Or would you mind explaining how to achieve it?
>
> RPM allows a file to be owned by more than one package. Fedora has
> allowed this for eight years:
> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/138
>
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_dire...
>
> The file would be owned by both packages, and only removed if both
> packages get removed. That means it would be present if at least one
> of them was installed.
>
> >>
> >> if [ -n "${BASH_VERSION-}" -o -n "${KSH_VERSION-}" -o
-n
> >> "${ZSH_VERSION-}" ]; then
> >> Â [ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ]
&& return
> >> Â # for bash and and ksh and zsh
> >> Â case "$(type -t vim)-$(type -t vi)" in
> >> Â Â Â file-file)
> >> Â Â Â Â Â # both vim and vi are present
> >> Â Â Â Â Â alias vi=vim
> >> Â Â Â Â Â alias view="vim -R"
> >> Â Â Â Â Â ;;
> >> Â Â Â -file)
> >> Â Â Â Â Â # only vim-minimal is installed, expose it as 'vim' too
> >> Â Â Â Â Â alias vim=vi
> >> Â Â Â Â Â ;;
> >> Â esac
> >> fi
> >>
> >Looks good, although it doesn't touch the problem mistaking Vi and Vim
> >as I said before. I tried to come up with a little bash script which
> >will mention it really runs vi instead of typed vim (just the important
> >snippet):
> >
> >alias vim="read -rep $'No vim found, using vi, press ENTER to
> >continue\n' -n1 -t 20 -s && vi"
> >
> >This can be add into bash profile instead of 'alias vim=vi' when only
> >vim-minimal is installed.
> >
> >Does it work for our case? IMO only problem would be with scripting, but
> >scripts which depend on vim and run on machine without vim-enhanced are
> >broken even now, so it shouldn't be a problem here.
>
> That would work for me.
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
4:56 p.m.
On Sat, 2020-10-10 at 14:37 +0200, clime wrote:
Hello,
could Fedora and CentOS containers for docker and podman come with
`alias vim=vi` in ~/.bashrc?
I would very much welcome it as I am used to type vim everywhere but
if vi starts instead I am happy too. I know that the solution is to
create a customized container but often I want to try something on
vanilla containers from the whole range.
Didn't want to write about this first but maybe there are more people
with the same problem.
I think what you need is edit /etc/profile.d/vim.sh and comment line 2
[1]
I in 2005 already asked to make vim default on root user [2] :)
[1]
- [ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ] && return
+ # [ "`/usr/bin/id -u 2>/dev/null || echo 0`" -le 200 ] && return
[2]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=168010
clime
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Sérgio M. B.
12:29 a.m.
On 10/10/20 2:37 PM, clime wrote:
Hello,
could Fedora and CentOS containers for docker and podman come with
`alias vim=vi` in ~/.bashrc?
I would very much welcome it as I am used to type vim everywhere but
if vi starts instead I am happy too. I know that the solution is to
create a customized container but often I want to try something on
vanilla containers from the whole range.
IMHO it is not a good idea. Some users which don't have to know the
problem can run 'vi' while thinking they run 'vim' and be surprised that
most 'Vim' features don't work and they will file a bug tickets, which
will be irrelevant, consuming reporter's&maintainer's time.
This problem should be solved by user (when he know there is no Vim and
excepts to use Vi, then he creates alias) or by installing vim-enhanced.
--
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
2:34 p.m.
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 07:39, Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 10/10/20 2:37 PM, clime wrote:
> Hello,
>
> could Fedora and CentOS containers for docker and podman come with
> `alias vim=vi` in ~/.bashrc?
>
> I would very much welcome it as I am used to type vim everywhere but
> if vi starts instead I am happy too. I know that the solution is to
> create a customized container but often I want to try something on
> vanilla containers from the whole range.
IMHO it is not a good idea. Some users which don't have to know the
problem can run 'vi' while thinking they run 'vim' and be surprised that
most 'Vim' features don't work and they will file a bug tickets, which
will be irrelevant, consuming reporter's&maintainer's time.
well, it would be good if vim itself display in which mode it runs. So then
if I run "vim", I get "vi", i will know, ok, i got only the stripped
down version
because i am in a container and the "extension" is not yet installed.
I would very much appreciate it as a user (about 16 years) of the great vim.
Usually in a vanilla container, i just want to run an editor quickly
to look at a file or
quickly edit something - i don't really care about user experience
because if I did,
I would already customized the container.
I wonder if typing vi instead of "vim" on my computer has any effect.
I am quite positive
that it had at some point in time but not sure about nowadays.
clime
>
> This problem should be solved by user (when he know there is no Vim and
> excepts to use Vi, then he creates alias) or by installing vim-enhanced.
>
> --
> Zdenek Dohnal
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
3:53 a.m.
On 10/12/20 9:34 PM, clime wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 07:39, Zdenek Dohnal
<zdohnal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/20 2:37 PM, clime wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> could Fedora and CentOS containers for docker and podman come with
>> `alias vim=vi` in ~/.bashrc?
>>
>> I would very much welcome it as I am used to type vim everywhere but
>> if vi starts instead I am happy too. I know that the solution is to
>> create a customized container but often I want to try something on
>> vanilla containers from the whole range.
> IMHO it is not a good idea. Some users which don't have to know the
> problem can run 'vi' while thinking they run 'vim' and be surprised
that
> most 'Vim' features don't work and they will file a bug tickets, which
> will be irrelevant, consuming reporter's&maintainer's time.
well, it would be good if vim itself display in which mode it runs. So then
if I run "vim", I get "vi", i will know, ok, i got only the stripped
down version
because i am in a container and the "extension" is not yet installed.
I'm not sure if this can be done within Vim as app, but I'm checking if
I cannot do some bash magic to achieve this.
I would very much appreciate it as a user (about 16 years) of the great vim.
Usually in a vanilla container, i just want to run an editor quickly
to look at a file or
quickly edit something - i don't really care about user experience
because if I did,
I would already customized the container.
I understand your point of view, it is
really annoying for people who
know the problem, although as a maintainer I must be cautious about
generic/default settings because it influences all users, not just
container's users.
I wonder if typing vi instead of "vim" on my computer has any effect.
I am quite positive
that it had at some point in time but not sure about nowadays.
I would say PackageKit (IIUC) stepped in and told you:
'vim is not installed, do you want to install?'
But I'm not sure if it is installed by default (in container or normal
OS) or if it even works nowadays this way.
clime
> This problem should be solved by user (when he know there is no Vim and
> excepts to use Vi, then he creates alias) or by installing vim-enhanced.
>
> --
> Zdenek Dohnal
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
5:57 a.m.
On 13/10/20 10:53 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
On 10/12/20 9:34 PM, clime wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 07:39, Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 10/10/20 2:37 PM, clime wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> could Fedora and CentOS containers for docker and podman come with
>>> `alias vim=vi` in ~/.bashrc?
>>>
>>> I would very much welcome it as I am used to type vim everywhere but
>>> if vi starts instead I am happy too. I know that the solution is to
>>> create a customized container but often I want to try something on
>>> vanilla containers from the whole range.
>> IMHO it is not a good idea. Some users which don't have to know the
>> problem can run 'vi' while thinking they run 'vim' and be
surprised that
>> most 'Vim' features don't work and they will file a bug tickets,
which
>> will be irrelevant, consuming reporter's&maintainer's time.
> well, it would be good if vim itself display in which mode it runs. So then
> if I run "vim", I get "vi", i will know, ok, i got only the
stripped
> down version
> because i am in a container and the "extension" is not yet installed.
I'm not sure if this can be done within Vim as app, but I'm checking if
I cannot do some bash magic to achieve this.
>
> I would very much appreciate it as a user (about 16 years) of the great vim.
>
> Usually in a vanilla container, i just want to run an editor quickly
> to look at a file or
> quickly edit something - i don't really care about user experience
> because if I did,
> I would already customized the container.
I understand your point of view, it is really annoying for people who
know the problem, although as a maintainer I must be cautious about
generic/default settings because it influences all users, not just
container's users.
And yet /etc/profile.d/vim.sh will happily stomp on my own shell
functions or self-installed 'vi' executables :-)
This isn't a problem for me in practice, because I don't have any
functions or self-installed 'vi' commands. I just find it inconsistent
that the existing script doesn't use the same caution.
8:43 a.m.
On 10/13/20 12:57 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/10/20 10:53 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> On 10/12/20 9:34 PM, clime wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 07:39, Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/10/20 2:37 PM, clime wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> could Fedora and CentOS containers for docker and podman come with
>>>> `alias vim=vi` in ~/.bashrc?
>>>>
>>>> I would very much welcome it as I am used to type vim everywhere but
>>>> if vi starts instead I am happy too. I know that the solution is to
>>>> create a customized container but often I want to try something on
>>>> vanilla containers from the whole range.
>>> IMHO it is not a good idea. Some users which don't have to know the
>>> problem can run 'vi' while thinking they run 'vim' and be
surprised
>>> that
>>> most 'Vim' features don't work and they will file a bug tickets,
which
>>> will be irrelevant, consuming reporter's&maintainer's time.
>> well, it would be good if vim itself display in which mode it runs.
>> So then
>> if I run "vim", I get "vi", i will know, ok, i got only the
stripped
>> down version
>> because i am in a container and the "extension" is not yet installed.
> I'm not sure if this can be done within Vim as app, but I'm checking if
> I cannot do some bash magic to achieve this.
>>
>> I would very much appreciate it as a user (about 16 years) of the
>> great vim.
>>
>> Usually in a vanilla container, i just want to run an editor quickly
>> to look at a file or
>> quickly edit something - i don't really care about user experience
>> because if I did,
>> I would already customized the container.
> I understand your point of view, it is really annoying for people who
> know the problem, although as a maintainer I must be cautious about
> generic/default settings because it influences all users, not just
> container's users.
And yet /etc/profile.d/vim.sh will happily stomp on my own shell
functions or self-installed 'vi' executables :-)
This isn't a problem for me in practice, because I don't have any
functions or self-installed 'vi' commands. I just find it inconsistent
that the existing script doesn't use the same caution.
To be honest, it was added by the previous maintainer, and if I'm not
sure about what was behind the decision to make this way, I don't touch
it till someone complains.
But for the new stuff I tend to apply caution with my best effort.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
2:26 a.m.
On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 02:37:48PM +0200, clime wrote:
could Fedora and CentOS containers for docker and podman come with
`alias vim=vi` in ~/.bashrc?
I would very much welcome it as I am used to type vim everywhere but
if vi starts instead I am happy too. I know that the solution is to
create a customized container but often I want to try something on
vanilla containers from the whole range.
As far as I know, a default editor in Fedora is nano now. Thus I would be
surprised if you found vi in the container image.
-- Petr
2:43 a.m.
Hi,
just note - the functionality has been removed in the recent Vim package
for 2 reasons:
1) making it default breaks a default vim alias - vimdiff == vim -d ,
because diff functionality is not a part of small set of features 'vi'
is compiled with
2) making it optional via an environment variable (the way I thought it
could be possible) doesn't cover all use cases when the 'vim -> vi'
should work f.e. doesn't work with sudo. And it still requires an action
from user which wants the functionality to be enabled, so I don't see a
difference for user if the user needs to set 'alias vim=vi' or set
environment variable.
I'm sorry for inconvenience,
Zdenek
On 10/10/20 2:37 PM, clime wrote:
Hello,
could Fedora and CentOS containers for docker and podman come with
`alias vim=vi` in ~/.bashrc?
I would very much welcome it as I am used to type vim everywhere but
if vi starts instead I am happy too. I know that the solution is to
create a customized container but often I want to try something on
vanilla containers from the whole range.
Didn't want to write about this first but maybe there are more people
with the same problem.
clime
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
1168
days inactive
1291
days old
24 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Chris Adams -
clime -
Dominique Martinet -
Gordon Messmer -
Joe Doss -
Jonathan Wakely -
Petr Pisar -
Sérgio Basto -
Zdenek Dohnal