Re: [PROPOSAL DRAFT]: editor and sensible-editor
On 03-Jun-99, 09:26 (CDT), Goswin Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> Maybe we could rename sensible-editor to editor. I just hate having
> two things make the same.
>
> editor could be removed and sensible-editor would be renamed to editor
> and call /etc/alternatives/editor when $EDITOR is unset. The
> additional bash that gets started is irellevant, since bash will be in
> memory anyway and exec $EDITOR frees the little unshared memory.
No, this I object to. The alternative 'editor' serves a useful
purpose: it is the system default editor, as determined by the system
administrator. Sensible-editor tries to obey the user's desired
editor, and attempts fallbacks if that won't work or is not set. Your
proposal doesn't change what actually happens, it just bypasses[1] the
update-alternatives system.
Steve
[1] Actually, it doesn't work at all: where does the link
/etc/alternatives/editor come from if /usr/bin/editor isn't managed by
update-alternatives?
Reply to: