Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Bob Proulx wrote:
> 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/vi should be an alternative for vi-compatible editors.
/usr/bin/vi should then be an alternative that is hooked into /usr/bin/editor.
Same for emacs.