[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Editor and sensible-editor



On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 at 12:22, Joseph Carter wrote about "Re: Editor and...":

> I'm about to be harsh on you, so I shall apologize in advance.

As long as we're not commenting on each other's anatomy parts, I think I
can deal with it. ;-)

> Barring the argument that sensible-editor assumes sensible-user who would
> never use such a braindead and bloated piece of software for any
> practical purpose, your argument demonstrates that you need to be fwopped

Fine. But given that pico is a package within Debian (non-free, whatever;
it's still a package). Why I use pico shouldn't concern anybody else.

> #!/bin/bash
> shopt -s execfail
> exec ${VISUAL:-${EDITOR:-editor}} "$@"

Yes, I saw this. But I didn't see, like the following two lines, something
that supported pico OUTSIDE of the VISUAL or EDITOR environment variables.

> exec ae "$@"
> exec vi "$@"
> echo "Couldn't find an editor!" 1>&2
> echo "Set the \$EDITOR environment variable to your desired editor." 1>&2
> exit 1
> 
> If you believe this does not support pico the way setting EDITOR in your
> environment does, I must say PEBKAC and you need to go back and look over
> bash(1) again very badly.

I believe it does. I wanted "native" support.

> If all of this does not make sense to you, probably you should not be
> trying to second or object to policy proposals.  As you also do not
> appear to be in my developer keyring, either you have not yet been added,
> you're not a developer, or your key does not include your name.

It all makes perfect sense, I'm not a developer, no key and none on the
ring.  It made perfect sense beforehand and it makes perfect sense now. I
would still like to see a "hard-coded" line for pico, like there is for ae
or vi. That's all I wanted.

> If you are not a developer, your opinions are still welcome, however only
> developers should be making formal seconds and objections to policy
> proposals and ammendments.  In the meantime, *FWOP FWOP FWOP*, you
> deserve it.  =p

Even if my opinions were not welcome, I'd still be giving them. ;-)

And while, you may be right (I'm not saying you are) that developers
should be the only ones seconding and objecting -- do we even have a
formal policy on proposals? Yes, Manoj has something...but does policy
refer to it? And is this discussed in Manoj's document? (sorry, haven't
taken a look)

*Steel, non-developer armor protects me the whole time*

-- 
Brock Rozen                                              brozen@torah.org
Director of Technical Services                             (410) 602-1350
Project Genesis                                     http://www.torah.org/ 

Attachment: pgprYLvi_rxAH.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: