Rxvt question

[Brian Mays <brian@debian.org>]

I am not subscribed to debian-chinese.  Therefore, please cc all replies
to me.  Thank you.

I am about to add Chinese GB support to Debian's rxvt-ml package.  But
before I do, I would like to ask two questions.

Recently, Anthony Fok sent me a detailed patch to enable Chinese GB
support.  His patch would add the following binaries to rxvt-ml:

	crxvt-big5
	crxvt-gb

and it would add the following symlinks to the package:

	gbrxvt -> crxvt-gb
	b5rxvt -> crxvt-big5
	crxvt -> crxvt-big5

Therefore, I have the following questions:

1) There are two ways to distinguish alternate versions of the rxvt
binary: (1) adding a prefix to the name (e.g., krxvt); (2) adding a
suffix to the name (e.g., rxvt-xpm).  Anthony's patch uses both of these
methods.  That is, it adds a suffix to the name and uses a symbolic
links that add a prefix to the name.  Are both of these methods really
necessary?  In my opinion, it would be better to drop the b5rxvt and
gbrxvt symbolic links and distinguish the two binaries with the -gb and
-big5 suffices.

2) Shouldn't the crxvt symbolic link use Debian's alternatives scheme,
so that the system administrator can choose whether crxvt runs the Big5
version or the GB version of rxvt?

In other words, I recommend that the symbolic links be replaced with the
following:

	crxvt -> /etc/alternatives/crxvt -> /usr/X11R6/bin/crxvt-big5

Thus, there would be no gbrxvt and b5rxvt.  This is what I recommend;
however, I defer to whatever the members of this mailing list decide.

Please let me know what you think.

Thank you,
Brian