Re: Bug#40282: ae: Improper priority 'required'
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> > ae is required, as it is the only editor on the base system. This was
> > discussed in the past and I understood that we were going to leave it
> > alone.
>
> I thought "being in the base system" and "being of required priority"
> were orthogonal issues.
>
> ae is in the base system because of its size, but I don't see it is
> more "required" than any other of the available editors.
As I understand the argument, the desire is to insure that at least one
editor remains on the system. The "required" priority keeps ae as that
editor even if all other editors have been removed.
The "editor" update-alternatives priority removes ae as the editor of
choice for almost any other editor on the system.
The two of these seem to satisfy the desired results correctly without
"imposing" ae on anyone who doesn't want it.
Personally, (and as the maintainer of the package) I have no axe to grind
here. I agree that it is true that ae need not necessarily be required on
the system, but I can also see the need to assure that properly managed
systems don't end up without an editor. I would not be upset if vi or even
emacs were used to fill the "required" conditions of having an editor, but
it also seems that ae is the "natural" choice for this insurance, given
that in some conditions it is the only editor available because you only
have a working rescue disk.
I can see both sides of this argument, so I'll let someone else make the
call. (Then I have someone to blame ;-)
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: