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

Re: all xterms



On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:55:34AM +0100, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The disadvantage of the alternative concept over some sensible-xterm
> shell script is, that alternatives are static for all users, while
> sensible-xterm could be used on a per-user basis (with
> x-terminal-emulator as the fall back).

Is there any particular reason why the alternatives mechanism couldn't
simply be fixed so users can select their own alternatives?

For example, instead of having a symlink to the real /usr/bin/foo-1.2
in /etc/alternatives/foo, have an automagically generated script that
looks something like:

	#!/bin/sh
	prog=`basename $1`
	if [ "$HOME" && -e "$HOME/.alternatives/$prog ]; then
		exec $HOME/.alternatives/$prog
	fi
	exec /usr/bin/foo-1.2

Or have it debconf-ized, and make it look more like:

	#!/bin/sh
	. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule.sh

	prog=`basename $1`
	if db_get "alternatives/$prog"; then
		exec $RET
	fi

Or add a separate indirection, so
	/usr/bin/foo -> /etc/alternatives/bins/foo
	/etc/alternatives/bin/foo is a script that defaults to
		/etc/alternatives/foo
	/etc/alternatives/foo -> /usr/bin/foo-1.2
or similar, so you can still cat /etc/alternatives/foo to look at the
system default.

(Of course, you'd only want to do this for exectuables. Manpages and
whatnot would still have to make do with a symlink)

OTOH, you could just encourage your users to do something like:
	mkdir ~/bin
	ln -s /usr/bin/rxvt ~/bin/xterm
	echo 'export PATH=~/bin:$PATH' >>.bashrc
and be done with it.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
        results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
                                        -- Linus Torvalds

Attachment: pgpb6AeLSNqe8.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: