On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:40:02PM -0500, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:20:12PM -0500, James Vega wrote:
> > > So, if you think vimtutor belongs to vim-common fine, put it there, but
> > > please explain (to us and in the changelog) why you think it belongs
> > > there.
> > Well, the original reason you mentioned it was moved out of vim-common
> > was because you thought vim-common was Arch: all. This isn't the case
>
> No, you misread me.
>
> vimtutor is a shell script, so the point of the poster on debian-devel
> who suggested me the move was that it should belong to an Arch:all
> package. At the time it was in vim-common which is _not_ Arch:all thus I
> moved it to vim-runtime which _is_ Arch:all.
>
> I forget to move its manpage which of course should follow the
> executable.
Ah, that makes more sense.
> > Also, vim-common is the only package that's guaranteed to be installed
> > with any vim variant so you'll always have the tutor available.
>
> That's a good point. But one can argue that if you don't have
> vim-runtime it's because you only want a minimal installation of vim.
> Reasonably then you wont need vimtutor (even because it won't work
> without vim-runtime) nor xxd.
Ok, I'll move vimtutor back to vim-runtime and make sure the manpage is
installed in vim-runtime as well.
James
--
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
|
