The Gentoo Handbook paragraph 1.a promises that Gentoo is all about choices. Quote: "It is very important that you understand that choices are what makes Gentoo run. We try not to force you onto anything you don't like. If you feel like we do, please bugreport it." When I try to edit a file with my editor of choice (vi) I'm forced to use editor that I don't like (nano). I therefore feel that I need to bugreport it. Either vi editor should be added to the install or the documentation amended with a statement "except for choice of a text editor". Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. vi 2. 3. Actual Results: bash: vi: command not found Expected Results: vi editor starts I tried to re-open existing bug 2098 but again I was presented with no such choice (option) and therefore I'm forced to open a new bug.
If you prefer vi for editing simply documents that are part of the Gentoo Install process then download the LiveDVD which provides VI for your satisfation. The minimal install cds are meant to be 'minimal' as the name puts it and thus shouldn't need more than an average well known text editor like nano. Maybe the suggestion to use the livedvd for users that prefer vi to go through the install process, should be included but IMO most users will just settle for nano for such little editing of configuration files.
I can't believe you can't add extra 20kb file for bsd-vi or elvis to a 100 MB "minimal" CD. BTW I just found out GNU Emacs is there. So don't give me the BS about it being minimal. This is just absolutely ridiculous. You have space to put emacs but you don't to put vi? I don't want to edit documents when using the install CD. I want to edit critical system configuration files such as fstab, lilo.conf, grub.conf, password/shadow, pam, you name it. I don't want to edit them with editor of your choice. I want to edit them with editor of my choice so I'm comfortable with it. And what if I'm on a 9600 BPS serial console. Which editor do you want me to use then nano or emacs? Because I wouldn't either of them. This case is not about which editor is better for what. This case is about your so much proclaimed *choice*. I can choose everything, absolutely everything, except for an editor to build my system with. Well I can choose between nano and emacs. Gentoo is supposed to be for expert users who want to build their system from scratch. You ask people to mess with critical compiler flags but when it comes to an editor you say the users are novice and should use nano. WTF?
(In reply to comment #2) > I can't believe you can't add extra 20kb file for bsd-vi or elvis to a 100 MB > "minimal" CD. BTW I just found out GNU Emacs is there. So don't give me the BS > about it being minimal. This is just absolutely ridiculous. You have space to > put emacs but you don't to put vi? > > I don't want to edit documents when using the install CD. I want to edit > critical system configuration files such as fstab, lilo.conf, grub.conf, > password/shadow, pam, you name it. I don't want to edit them with editor of > your choice. I want to edit them with editor of my choice so I'm comfortable > with it. > > And what if I'm on a 9600 BPS serial console. Which editor do you want me to > use then nano or emacs? Because I wouldn't either of them. > > This case is not about which editor is better for what. This case is about your > so much proclaimed *choice*. I can choose everything, absolutely everything, > except for an editor to build my system with. Well I can choose between nano > and emacs. > > Gentoo is supposed to be for expert users who want to build their system from > scratch. You ask people to mess with critical compiler flags but when it comes > to an editor you say the users are novice and should use nano. WTF? > Until I am part of the release engineering TEAM, I cannot help you with this request. Sorry for the lack of choice, for now just deal with it. Thank you.
So who can deal with that? Can you direct me to someone. I want to have my choice. I can donate to gentoo to get the extra 20KB on to the install CD. Please let me know who I can talk with. Is the only way I can deal with it is what all opensource people do - make a fork of gentoo with VI instead of emacs? This is just pathetic. I don't want to be building my system with a novice toy editor of no choice while you advertise it as system with choice for "power users"
I found that busybox is compiled with vi so running "busybox vi" will bring up vi editor. Why wont you make a symbolic link vi to busybox on the live cd?
(In reply to comment #5) > Why wont you make a symbolic link vi to busybox on the live cd? See bug 302818 for an explanation.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Why wont you make a symbolic link vi to busybox on the live cd? > > See bug 302818 for an explanation. > Your response is invalid. bug 302818 is about adding a symlink to the stage file, not the install cd.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > Why wont you make a symbolic link vi to busybox on the live cd? > > > > See bug 302818 for an explanation. > > > > Your response is invalid. bug 302818 is about adding a symlink to the stage > file, not the install cd. Yes, but the same reply applies.
Commit message: Install /bin/vi -> busybox symlink when USE=livecd http://sources.gentoo.org/sys-apps/busybox/busybox-1.19.3-r1.ebuild?r1=1.13&r2=1.14 http://sources.gentoo.org/sys-apps/busybox/busybox-1.20.0.ebuild?r1=1.4&r2=1.5 http://sources.gentoo.org/sys-apps/busybox/busybox-9999.ebuild?r1=1.3&r2=1.4
Many thanks!! Does USE=livecd mean it will work on the minimal install CD or only on the LiveCD?
(In reply to comment #10) > Many thanks!! Does USE=livecd mean it will work on the minimal install CD or > only on the LiveCD? It will be applied on the next run of the minimal CDs.
This should be fixed now, so I'm closing the bug.
