On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:02:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I think there are three options, and I'd love to get feedback on which of > those three options we should take. > > 1. Status quo: there is an undocumented editor virtual package, Policy > says that nothing has to provide or depend on it, and some random > collection of editors provide it. I think this is a bad place to be, > so I would hope we can rule out sticking with that status quo. > > 2. Document editor and recommend everyone implement it properly. Since > we're going to allow packages to depend on editor, I think providing it > would need to be a should, so that's going to be a lot of buggy (but > not RC-buggy) editor packages. But it would get us to a clean > dependency system. > > 3. Mark editor obsolete. looking at these three options for "for doing the best solution" I think we should go for 2 or maybe 3, but then I think it's a sensible thing to depend on, so I would say we should go with option 2. I"m also very fine with this resulting in some trivial bugs being filed. -- cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature