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

Re: 'editor' alternative policy?



On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 01:38:10PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > don't think it's in the current policy yet. Is there a policy for editor?
> > If there isn't, how should I decide my priority?
> I don't believe there is a policy, but glancing at /v/l/d/alt/editor and
> simple reasoning says that editor should be console based, and a good 
> common denominator for the users on the system - i.e. something easy
> to use without much training. Anyone who wants something specialized can
> set it that way. (By this reasoning, vim should not have the level it
> does. I'm tempted to file a bug (wishlist) on vim on the matter.)

What I see in /v/l/d/a/editor is the priorities are random now. In my
system,
/bin/ae 20
/usr/bin/joe 70
/usr/bin/nano 40 (I copied from Pico, IIRC)
/usr/bin/vim 20

And I don't think a priority of 70 conforms to any rationale.

Should there be policy for this, as for x-w-m?

-- 
Jordi Mallach Pérez || jordi@pusa.informat.uv.es || Rediscovering Freedom,
   aka Oskuro in    || jordi@sindominio.net      || Using Debian GNU/Linux
 Reinos de Leyenda  || jordi@debian.org          || http://debian.org

http://sindominio.net  GnuPG public information:      pub  1024D/917A225E 
telnet pusa.uv.es 23   73ED 4244 FD43 5886 20AC  2644 2584 94BA 917A 225E

Attachment: pgp3ltR5PvR5q.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: