From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add most debian patches to nvi.
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:03:03 +0100
Message-ID: <873874w508.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <54BFBAED.3090502@gmail.com> <54BFBB39.5030200@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41912)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1YDwoH-0008I5-PO
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:03:15 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1YDwoD-0005Qq-NA
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:03:09 -0500
Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a01:474::1]:49782)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
	id 1YDwoD-0005Qj-Gf
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:03:05 -0500
In-Reply-To: <54BFBB39.5030200@gmail.com> (Marek Benc's message of "Wed, 21
	Jan 2015 15:44:09 +0100")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Marek Benc <merkur32@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Marek Benc <merkur32@gmail.com> skribis:

> On 01/21/2015 10:35 AM, Andreas Enge wrote:
>> The number of patches looks quite frightening. From the README of nvi, t=
he
>> current version dates from 2007. Now if upstream is dead and does not fix
>> patches, it might be preferable to remove the package altogether. Is the=
re no
>> viable alternative that is still alive? Or vim in legacy mode?
>
> I guess there is vim, which can be configured to behave pretty similar
> to vi, but I personally think that having variety is good. Of course, I
> won't object if you remove the package, because objectively, it is
> obsolete, and I can always put it into my private package path :)

I agree with Andreas: there are 20 patches, and that level of patching
goes beyond our mission, IMO.

I would rather leave it as is if it=E2=80=99s usable, or remove it, or poin=
t to
a new upstream if there is one.

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.