Hello Jonathan, On Wed, Nov 08 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > I understand and agree, but that doesn't mean that packages should > invoke editor using an absolute path. > > Policy describes package behavior, not user behavior. Right. In this case, though, it describes package behaviour meant to avoid getting in the way of user behaviour. > Further, a sysadmin on a shared machine doesn't have a way to set > EDITOR for all users, but they can install an editor command to > /usr/local/bin/. I've seen sysadmins at a university do something > similar for e.g. a custom build of gcc. It would be more robust for > the sysadmin to use alternatives instead, but I'm just saying it's > more polite for a package to respect what the user was trying to do. That's a good point about /usr/local/bin/, and I think it defeats my suggestion. Enabling local admins to make use of /usr/local/bin/editor is more important than enabling (unusual) users to have ~/bin/editor not be an editor. >> This seems sensible because 'editor' and >> 'pager' are fairly generic terms and a user might have things in >> ~/bin/editor or ~/bin/pager that don't edit or page, respectively. > > Really? That would be a reason for the 'editor' and 'pager' commands > to be named something else. But on the contrary, I find 'editor' and > 'pager' to be pretty clear names for what they do. > > Is there additional information or context I can provide to change > your mind? I should be clear that I'm not really objecting, just trying to understand why the current wording is the way it is. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature