On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 10:06:10AM +0300, Brock Rozen wrote:
> > 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.
Not even. pico CANNOT be packaged for Debian! The best that can be done
is offer the source and let you build it yourself. If you do that, pico
will provide the editor alternative. If you want it to be the default
system editor, anybody else using your system will want to hurt you, but
being your system you are of course free to raise its priority with
update-alternatives and make it the system default.
> > #!/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 "$@"
The above two lines should NEVER get executed since both ae and vi
provide /usr/bin/editor! If they do, something is broken. They are
provided because just in case something is seriously broken, ae and vi
should still be on the system---they ARE part of the base installation
after all. Just because your editor is a piece of crap (and non-free
crap at that) doesn't mean it's being discriminated against. ae and vi
are part of the base system. pico isn't.
> > 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.
To be blunt: Tough. Convince UW to make pico free software and get it
into main, then convince people that it needs to be installed as part of
the base system. Then we can talk about adding it as a panic option.
> > 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)
For all intents and purposes, Manoj is the policy maintainer. He's come
up with a procedure for developers to update the policy through consensus
rather than having everything be done or not done based on his personal
opinions, but I'm pretty sure out of 500+ developers I could count those
who would object if he decided to take complete control of policy on one
hand. He's certainly qualified for the position.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Overfiend> Thunder-: when you get { MessagesLikeThisFromYourHardDrive }
<Overfiend> Thunder-: it either means { TheDriverIsScrewy }
<Overfiend> or
<Overfiend> { YourDriveIsFlakingOut BackUpYourDataBeforeIt'sTooLate
PrayToGod }
Attachment:
pgpJm0AWxg0Bc.pgp
Description: PGP signature