Bug#3013: elvis is too granular and has short description
> Our general policy is not to have x and nox versions of things.
I can confirm this. We broke the xlib package out of the rest of X
so that we could install X-optional programs on non-X systems without
the need for no-X versions of the packages.
> Where have we articulated that policy?
It was the consensus of the group some time ago when we made this change.
It belongs in the develper guidelines.
> In any case, I disagree with it in this case. I intend to continue to
> offer both the X11 and non-X11 versions of elvis.
Aw com'on. It's the only X and no-X package pair left in the entirety of
Debian. All of the rest are gone as far as I can tell.
> The distribution maintainers can choose to reject the offered packages
> if they so desire.
Lighten up. We're not going to reject the packages, but we might attempt
to convince you that one of them is redundant.
> I moved ctags out to a single package because I thought that it was even
> sillier to have elvis conflict with emacs. I suggested update-alternatives
> at one time, but got no response. Ian Murdock, you're the emacs maintainer.
> What's your pleasure?
Is Ian still maintaining Emacs? I think it's a good idea to not have
editors conflict because of ctags. I think we should just make up one
definitive version of ctags and have the editor packages not install their
own versions.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Clinton isn't perfect, but I like him a whole lot more than Dole.
Bruce Perens AB6YM Bruce@Pixar.com http://www.hams.com/
Reply to: