Re: Bug#398752: nvi package should provide virtual package editor
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
(please keep me in CC)
Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote:
> Hi Eddy,
> (CCing d-devel, joining Christoph Haas' thread)
>
>> The nvi package is an editor, but in spite of that it does not provide
>> the virtual package "editor".
>>
>> Please add this Provides.
>
> please see this discussion thread[1] back in 1996 about the virtual packages
> list that is included in the policy. AFAICT, the consensus was that al-
> though the editor virtual package wouldn't hurt, it wouldn't improve things
> either, so it was removed from the list again (after being on it for only
> a few months).
Well, some people provided some (good) counter examples, but they seem unreplied.
Look at [1], [2] and at this:
"I am concerned about programs that might use $EDITOR as the means to
providing an editor. Pine, for instance, can be configured to call an
editor under certain circumstances. If no editor is available (due to
being removed) then, as we all know, pine will flash an error message for
all of 1/20th of a second and then stare at you. Emacs also has conditions
where it calls an outside editor, and I'm sure that there are others.
Problems of this type, caused by the lack of an editor will appear to be
bugs in other software. This is something to be avoided, in my estimation."
> OTOH, virtually every editor package out there seems to (still? yet?)
> provide it:
>
> ] jcn@hejre:~$ grep-available -n -FProvides editor -sPackage
> ] nano-tiny emacs-snapshot-nox emacs21-nox vim aee deutex emacs-snapshot
> ] emacs21 jed nano emacs xjed python-soya emacs-snapshot-gtk vim-tiny
>
> Personally, I'd be happy to add the Provides if it weren't for
> this paragraph:
>
> ] Packages MUST NOT use virtual package names (except privately, amongst
> ] a cooperating group of packages) unless they have been agreed upon and
> ] appear in this list.
It appears that is a fact that many package use/need/might use this virtual
package name. (Note that I haven't digged into each of the packages listed
to see the reasons, so I might be wrong on some of them).
Depends:
etpan-ng
ldapvi
Suggests:
udo-doc-de
udo-doc-en
xpaint
Packages that could use the virtual package:
- - mutt and mutt-ng - could recomend an editor since there are many out
there using vim or another as an editor.
- - reportbug - obviously caould depend on editor
- - subversion - commit messages can invoke the editor
- - pida - could depend on editor (AFAICT, it can integrate it)
- - education-common - seems to recommend both vim and emacs packages - not sure
why, but it seems it would recommend an editor
- - junior-writing - maybe as a second alternative to nano, so nano is prefered
- - ocaml-tools - suggests vim
- - any configurable programming environment which allows choosing the editor
Also, the virtual package editor could be added as essential somehow allowing
the users to have the editor of choice on the system.
Note that any package that uses the alternative for editor could use this
virtual package.
> All opinions and clarifications welcome...
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1996/08/msg00004.html
This reply explains exactly my problem since there are packages which explicitly
depend on a certain editor while they desire just *an* editor:
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1996/08/msg00071.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1996/08/msg00067.html
- --
Regards,
EddyP
=============================================
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFZGiRY8Chqv3NRNoRApQ3AJ0fjKMkDhV8MrMuRuYGT4qrDz7asACaAshX
luaU9vqid98E6YCnAFNIh8I=
=0Zfv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: