Bug#682347: mark 'editor' virtual package name as obsolete

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Russ Allbery wrote:

> +++ b/policy/ch-customized-programs.rst
> @@ -93,19 +93,21 @@ page.
[...]
> -It is not required for a package to depend on ``editor`` and ``pager``,
> -nor is it required for a package to provide such virtual
> -packages. [#]_
> +Packages may assume that ``/usr/bin/editor`` and ``/usr/bin/pager`` are
> +available as fallbacks without adding an explicit package dependency, and
> +may fail if they are not present.  There are no ``editor`` or ``pager``
> +virtual packages.

One change this patch makes is to talk about /usr/bin/editor and
/usr/bin/pager files instead of editor and pager files.  Is that
intentional?

E.g. git uses "editor" as its default editor, not /usr/bin/editor.

[...]
> @@ -572,10 +574,6 @@ installed in ``/usr/share/man/man6``.
>     portion is handled internally by the package system based on the os
>     and cpu.
>  
> -.. [#]
> -   The Debian base system already provides an editor and a pager
> -   program.
> -

What should packages do if an editor is configured and the "editor"
command is not available?

That's an existing issue but I had never thought about it before.  It
would be nice if policy could say something about it.

Thanks,
Jonathan