Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:00:56PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Georg Neis wrote:
> > 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.
/usr/bin/editor is not only something invoked directly. It's also
invoked by programs as the default editor. And, if vim is the only
editor installed on the system, it had better be the default editor for
such programs! (I set $EDITOR for my ordinary user anyway, granted, but
not for root, which uses editor for such things as visudo.)
I don't mind lowering the priority of vi clones, or whatever; but please
don't try to get them removed from the editor alternative. It's quite
sufficient to have higher-priority editors installed by default.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]