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

Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors



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: pgpibNYOSSPBh.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: