Re: [ptxdist] [PATCH] vim: allow vim to be installed alongside busybox vi and xxd

[Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com>]

Hello Ian,

Am Fri, May 03, 2024 at 10:12:47AM +0100 schrieb Ian Abbott:
> On 03/05/2024 07:59, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> > Hello Ian,
> > 
> > I like the idea.  Maybe it confuses users if 'vi' calls busybox and
> > 'vim' the full featured Vim, but I appreciate it anyway.  More
> > feedback below.
> 
> Thanks for the review. Feedback below.
> 
> > Am Thu, May 02, 2024 at 03:53:22PM +0100 schrieb Ian Abbott:
> > > --- a/rules/vim.in
> > > +++ b/rules/vim.in
> > > @@ -1,15 +1,7 @@
> > >   ## SECTION=editors
> > > -comment "BusyBox' vi and xxd is selected!"
> > > -	depends on BUSYBOX_VI && BUSYBOX_XXD
> > > -
> > >   menuconfig VIM
> > >   	tristate
> > > -	depends on !(BUSYBOX_VI && BUSYBOX_XXD)
> > > -	select LIBC_DL
> > > -	select LIBC_M
> > > -	select GCCLIBS_GCC_S
> > > -	select NCURSES
> > >   	prompt "vim                           "
> > >   	help
> > >   	  Vim is an advanced text editor that seeks to provide the
> > > @@ -18,12 +10,20 @@ menuconfig VIM
> > >   if VIM
> > > -comment "BusyBox' vi is selected!"
> > > -	depends on BUSYBOX_VI
> > > -
> > >   config VIM_VIM
> > > -	depends on !BUSYBOX_VI
> > >   	bool "Vim Editor"
> > > +	select LIBC_DL
> > > +	select LIBC_M
> > > +	select GCCLIBS_GCC_S
> > > +	select NCURSES
> > 
> > Don't move this to the suboption, keep it in the original place but
> > add 'if VIM_VIM' like this:
> > 
> >      select LIBC_DL if VIM_VIM
> > 
> > This avoids dependency problems, it's also in documentation:
> > https://www.ptxdist.org/doc/dev_advanced_rule_files.html#managing-external-compile-time-dependencies-on-demand
> 
> OK, that makes sense.
> 
> > > +
> > > +comment "BusyBox' vi is selected!"
> > > +	depends on VIM_VIM && BUSYBOX_VI
> > > +
> > > +config VIM_VI_SYMLINK
> > > +	depends on VIM_VIM && !BUSYBOX_VI
> > 
> > The !BUSYBOX_VI is redundant, but I guess one can keep it.
> 
> I'm not sure why it's redundant. I don't want this option and BUSYBOX_VI
> fighting over the symlink to /usr/bin/vi in the image.

Right, there should be only one package setting that symlink.

What I meant was: VIM_VIM already depends on !BUSYBOX_VI so if
VIM_VI_SYMLINK depends on VIM_VIM, then !BUSYBOX_VI is already
implicitly satisfied and stating it again is not strictly necessary.

IMHO: Keep it in, it better reflects the intention.

Greets
Alex

> 
> > 
> > Greets
> > Alex
> > 
> > > +	bool "install symbolic link /usr/bin/vi"
> > > +	default y
> > >   comment "BusyBox' xxd is selected!"
> > >   	depends on BUSYBOX_XXD
> > > diff --git a/rules/vim.make b/rules/vim.make
> > > index b03778e53..8700b70bd 100644
> > > --- a/rules/vim.make
> > > +++ b/rules/vim.make
> > > @@ -103,6 +103,10 @@ VIM_INSTALL_OPT := \
> > >   VIM_LINKS := ex rview rvim view vimdiff
> > > +ifdef PTXCONF_VIM_VI_SYMLINK
> > > +VIM_LINKS += vi
> > > +endif
> > > +
> > >   $(STATEDIR)/vim.targetinstall:
> > >   	@$(call targetinfo)
> > > -- 
> > > 2.43.0
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> Thanks again. I'll submit a v2 patch shortly.
> 
> -- 
> -=( Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk> || MEV Ltd. is a company  )=-
> -=( registered in England & Wales.  Regd. number: 02862268.  )=-
> -=( Regd. addr.: S11 & 12 Building 67, Europa Business Park, )=-
> -=( Bird Hall Lane, STOCKPORT, SK3 0XA, UK. || www.mev.co.uk )=-
> 
>