Re: The irc and irssi alternatives.
epic and epic4 are forks of the original ircII client, which
traditionally installed itself as 'irc'. they both provide some level of
backward compatibility (interface and scriptwise) with ircII. irssi is new
code, from what i gather.
regardless of that all, an irc-client alternative might not be a bad
idea.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:10:02PM +0200, Birzan George Cristian wrote:
> Hello, I was poking around epic4 the other day and I noticed that, on my
> system [1], it and ircII are the only two IRC clients that use the irc
> alternative. Now, I've been looking at both the Policy and at some of
> the other alternatives on my system and found two rather different
> 'reasonings' for using alternatives.
> The Policy states that "When several packages all provide different
> versions of the same program or file (...)". On the other hand,
> x-window-manager, or x-terminal-emulator and a lot of other
> alternatives, don't provide different versions of the same program, but
> different programs with the same function.
> Getting back to the irc alternative, does that mean that all IRC clients
> should be registering as an alternative there? Or that only epic(3),
> epic4 and ircii should? (I'd go with the former, myself, but mass-filing
> without asking first is a Bad Thing [2])
>
> Secondly, irssi declares an alternative itself, but still, irssi-text
> conflicts with irssi-snapshot, even though the latter is supposed to be
> a build of the CVS version, thus a different version, so, it should've
> been an alternative.
>
> Yes, the issues are a bit unrelated and trivial, but still issues.
>
> [1] - I've got irssi-snapshot, epic, epic4, ircii, bitchx and xchat
> installed.
>
> [2] - I don't want my name to be associated, by Google, with "fscking
> idiot". :-)
--
nathan a ferch
nf@marginal.net
"And would this storage facility be located on these premises?" -Peck
Reply to: