On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 11:51:56PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > Hi Richard! > You wrote: > > But the question is whether to move nano to /bin. If word wrapping > > is the default, I think it makes nano unsuitable as a rescue or > > installation editor, because its main function would be to edit > > configuration files. > Well, I thinks it depends. If there is also (apart from the nano in > /bin, which is to be used for rescue purposes) a nano in /usr/bin (which > normal users would use to edit their text files), I agree with you. I > think however that we should not have the situation that an editor that > is commonly used by normal users, has default settings that do not make > sense to them. My idea was to get rid of the conflicts and replaces between nano and nano-tiny, and renaming the binary to nano-tiny. I have to check with aph if this means changes to the boot-floppies, but I don't think so (I assume the bf's spawn it using "editor"). Then, there would be /bin/nano-tiny and /usr/bin/nano, and -tiny wouldn't wrap at all. Is that a nice approach for everyone? Jordi -- 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:
pgpO1uENlObSY.pgp
Description: PGP signature