Georg Neis wrote: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=121303 >> Elvis as the standard editor (priority 120) is not very convenient. Imagine >> a newbie thrown into elvis, and he will be lost, and cannot quit:( > > This bugreport says that the elvis package (a vi clone) uses a too > high priority for the 'editor'-alternative (or for all > alternatives?). > > Which changes do you propose? As I read the original bug report and apply my own spin onto it I see the original poster was concerned that a user invoking /usr/bin/editor is probably not wanting either of the traditional vi or emacs editors. They are probably a user that wants a simpler to use editor. Perhaps something more like 'nano' or 'ee' than like either vi or emacs. (Note that emacs does not supply an alternative for /usr/bin/editor.) I personally would not have had either elvis or vim supply an alternative for /usr/bin/editor. But elvis is only one of the bunch. The vim program also supplies itself as an alternative for /usr/bin/editor. Changing elvis I do not believe addresses that concern in any way unless vim is also coordinated in this action. I think there is much room for a judgement call to be made here. I am not sure what a good list of basic newbie editors would be appropriate for someone that invokes "editor". Perhaps out of that list a good priority list for the alternatives could be proposed. As far as elvis being an alternative for /usr/bin/vi I think the current value is fine and I would not change it. I personally don't like the present defaults for /usr/bin/vi. But so much water has passed under the bridge that changing it now would be problematic. Bob
Attachment:
pgp0M7cXJ8l2W.pgp
Description: PGP signature