Re: policy on editor/pager support
On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Scott Ellis wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> > This seems much more complex than necessary. I don't see any reason that
> > EDITOR and PAGER can't be guaranteed to exist on the system. (Have the
> > base system provide them in /etc/profile)
>
> Still doesn't handle what happens if they go away.
How does /usr/bin/editor do any better? It can "go away" just as easily?
> As it stands now, it
> just formalizes what many packages already did, used EDITOR or PAGER if
> they were set, and if not fell back on something.
And, if /etc/profile were guaranteed to contain "sane" values for these
variables (provided by the base install) what is the need to "fall back"?
> However, lots of stuff
> fell back on vi and more rather than something more elegant, we just
> provide something more elegant, so stuff uses less by default (if
> available), as well as something more intuitive than vi. (of course if
> the admin WANTS to use more and vi, they can do that too)
With update-alternatives the last package installed with the highest
priority becomes the default editor. This will only guarantee that most
folks will get the editor they don't want ;-)
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: