Re: [Pan-users] Click on URL in a post??

[Eric Ortega]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 07:50:10PM -0700, Duncan wrote:
> On Fri 13 Dec 2002 14:27, Eric Ortega posted as excerpted below:

> > Debian, for example, uses a link from /usr/bin/vi to /etc/alternatives/vi,
> > which then points to /usr/bin/vim or /bin/vi depending on which packages
> > you have installed.
> >
> > I would assume that something happened when he typed 'vi' that was not
> > cool.  /bin/vi (on most installations) is only dependent, at most,
> > on libraries in /lib for good reason.
> 
> I thought the same.  However, at least on Mdk, vi is a link to vim, which 
> requires libraries (perl based, IIRC from the error) in /usr.  

This is why I suggested that you may not have realized that you could
probably actually run "vi" itself by a command like '/bin/vi'.  Just 'vi'
from a shell will probably attempt to run '/usr/bin/vi' first, which will
then do the symlink thing, etc, etc.

It would be incredibly bad of the Mandrake distribution to not provide
a "real" copy of the old-school vi for just these sorts of occasions.
In my Debian installation /bin/vi takes up 3.6 kB.  (or is that kiB or
KiB or ??)

This is topical if you were to, say, install a CVS copy of PAN into your
~/bin/ directory and then wanted to run it as opposed to the distribution's
copy.  You would run ~/bin/pan as opposed to 'pan' to ensure that the
proper copy is run.


> I STILL don't quite understand what perl libraries and extensions should be 
> needed for VI, but evidently they are, at least on Mdk, and THEY are on /usr.

vi doesn't need them.  vim, if compiled to use these things, can.  You can
run perl scripts and whatever from the ":" prompt in vim.  (Note that this
is different from ':!perl -e ...' as it's actually interpreted within vim,
allowing for more fanciness).


<snip>
> prerequisite.  Obviously, this person would disagree with me, however, as 
> they were calling themselves that, while yet dependent on RH spoon-feeding 
> them an appropriate kernel.  That anyone could even THINK of being so bold, 
> was certainly an eye opener to me, as I early on set out to be the exact 
> opposite of the characteristics manifest there.

As a piece of advice ;), never underestimate user's abilities to
misinterpret the capabilities, and demands, of the machines they are running.

Some people claim "Linux developer" status if they install a modern
distribution and then write and compile 'Hello, world.'

Others will never claim "Linux developer" status until they have a patch
accepted on lkml.


Title means little when it comes down to it.


Right, Charles, Our Most Esteemed And Holy Pan Developer? [1]




[1]  Isn't that what you wanted to be called, I forget sometimes.