Re: Path modification
Ok. No need to get combative. If the admin saw the package, got
interested, and installed it, the message *to the admin* seems potentially
useful, since PATH is fundamental and mh requires an unusual change to
work at all. Since debian ships things like mh-e, which usefully wrap and
simplify nmh, the potential for confusion is significant. But perhaps
this is an mh-e bug. If there is no way to deliver a message or it is
considered not worthwhile, fine.
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:29:04AM -0900, Britton wrote:
> > I don't think it would be excessively interactive for nmh
> > to somehow give a prompt notifying the user that the package requires
> > something that debian packages normally never need in order to work
>
> And how is it supposed to notify the users? It could possibly notify
> the sysadmin when the sysadmin installs the package, but that still
> leaves the users in the dark. Perhaps you were unaware that Gnu/Linux
> is a multiuser system?
>
> Mh is designed to be installed on a multiuser system without being
> intrusive to the users that aren't interested in it. It's a good,
> clean, flexible design which only confuses those who don't read
> documentation. And those folks are pretty much hopeless in any case.
>
> > Many debian nmh users will be trying nmh for the first time
> > because they saw the description and got interested, and won't know about
> > this peculiarity.
>
> Then those users should try reading the documentation, rather than
> complaining that a package which has been working fine for twenty
> years on a wide variety of *NIXen doesn't meet their limited and
> incorrect expectations.
>
> (And the ones using tcsh should switch to a shell that *isn't* the
> essence of pure evil! Frankly, I'd much rather add install-time
> warnings to csh and tcsh than to mh.) :-)
>
> --
> Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
> xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
> or xtifr@dsp.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
>
Reply to: