Source Mage code commit list

[flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>]

flux (flux AT sourcemage.org) wrote [09.10.01 14:54]:
> As is clear from the description, this is *not* the original vi, but yet
> another vi-alike clone. Please rename this to ex-vi (or exvi), as
> otherwise it could confuse people. Also, you should remove the
> CONFLICTS unless the spell actually installs as vi (not a symlink). Both
> vim and elvis (and probably any other vi-alike we have) can exist side
> by side, and they do not currently have CONFLICTS files.

I just did a test casting of this spell, and I see that it does indeed
install as /usr/bin/vi. However, this does not mean that it really
conflicts with vim (or elvis, or any other vi clone). It just means that
it will need the other installed clones to not symlink. This could be
accomplished via a subdepends, no?

Really I think all the vi clone spells need to be reworked in terms of
whether they install the symlink, and how they do so. Currently if one
has elvis installed and has that symlinked to /usr/bin/vi, and then you
cast vim, it doesn't check to see if the symlink already exists. It will
just happily overwrite it. Then if you recast elvis it will do the same.
Probably the sanest thing to do would be to have a "vi" spell which
presents a menu of vi clones to choose from, and let that spell handle
the symlink (or non-symlink binary), and have this spell called ex-vi
(as I suggested). Then we don't need to worry about which clone has what
symlink to /usr/bin/vi and having them overwriting each other.

I can do all this if you want, but I don't want to barge in on the good
work you've done for this spell already without your permission. :)

-- 
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: pgpisaT_fpJ_H.pgp
Description: PGP signature