Source Mage code commit list

[Ladislav Hagara <ladislav.hagara AT unob.cz>]

>> 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. :)
>   

I am also for rename this vi into ex-vi.
Also PROVIDES with VI is missing.

-- 
Ladislav Hagara