Re: Intent to adopt: info
Martin Schulze <joey@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE> writes:
> Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > Which is ugly. I think we should leave the original info binary
> > untouched and use a name as "showinfo" or "infopage" to request a
> > specific page. This binary could be maintained in
> > /etc/alternatives
> Why?
[Jumping in] Well, a good first reason is that FSF info has a rich and
useful set of command-line options that can be and are used in local
scripts by a number of people including myself. Unless you can
guarantee that all these other packages support *all* the command-line
options that FSF info does, they should not be named info.
Oh, I heard a rumor that FSF info works as an interactive program
too. One of these days, I may see if that rumor is correct. :-)
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: