Bug#776557: debian-policy: Please clarify 2.5 'unix heritage >= important'

[Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org>]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:49:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Martin Zobel-Helas:
> > the following sentence in 2.5 leave much room for maneuver, therefor i
> > would like to see a clarification how it should be interpreted:
> > 
> > | Important programs, including those which one would expect to find on
> > | any Unix-like system. If the expectation is that an experienced Unix
> > | person who found it missing would say "What on earth is going on, where
> > | is foo?", it must be an important package.
> > 
> > Background here is, that i moved the package "ed" to optional years ago,
> > and now have bug #776413 open, which disagrees on that move.
> 
> Quite frankly, any experienced Unix person who still uses "ed" for, well,
> anything at all really, should ask themselves where the hell they've been
> during the last 20 years or so.

I do not think people are still using ed for interactive use
(unless they have no other choice left)

On the other hand, ed scripts are still in use:
- by diff
- by apt-get: the pdiff system use ed scripts

so it is useful to keep the reference to what this is all about somewhere.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here.