Re: 'editor' alternative policy?
On 22-Jun-00, 17:54 (CDT), Jordi Mallach <jordi@sindominio.net> wrote:
> Woo, thanks for the info. I tried to find something, but in that message
> pool it's difficult.
It wasn't on any of the debian-* lists, just cc'd among the editor
maintainers.
> That would be great, but I see a problem if we don't define a mechanism to
> work out these priorities, how should maintainers packaging a new editor
> decide on a number? Asking -devel?
Well, I'd like to believe that maintainer packaging a new editor could
look at Dale's rationale and the current list and say "maxedfoo belongs
at N" and send me (or whoever's maintaining the list) a note and I'd add
it. If I disagreed strongly, I might converse with the maintainer, or
bring it up on -policy (or other agreed upon list).
I'm not thrilled with the idea of formulas...they seem to say that
the various maintainers can't be trusted to do the right thing. (For
example, in the original discussions, we had various maintainers urging
*lower* priorities for "their" editors, because they felt the editor
wasn't particularly well suited as a "standard".
In fact, I wouldn't mind revisiting the idea that the vi clones should
be ranked much lower. Anybody who want vi is going to type vi; somebody
who is so new to unix that they type "editor" probably ought to have
something a little more friendly, like nano or ee or ae. (For the
record, I maintain nvi, *like* vi, and thing the pico/nano interface is
hideous. But I know which one has a better chance of being successfully
used by a complete newbie...assimilation can wait!)
Anyway, I'll format the rationale/list and submit it to the powers that
be.
Steve
Reply to: