On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:38:20PM -0500, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 18-Jan-2005, Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | IIRC correctly, Thomas reported that (correctly, I may add) directly to the
> | bug list for Octave (this being an upstream issue, after all). In doing so,
> | he noticed the bug_report failure. I think I'd consider that upstream too,
> | though we could apply a Debian only patch. I general I do not like such
> | forks, though.
>
> I'd be happy to fix Octave, but what is the right fix? The bug report
> script uses
>
> : ${EDITOR=emacs}
>
> What would be better (and portable)?
I don't really know either, or I would have suggested it. We, as you know,
try to get by without environment variables. A Debian-only fix therefore
would be to talk to /usr/bin/sensible-editor, which is guaranteed to be
present. But that doesn't help in the general case for Octave.
It may not be worth going overboard here. You could do some autoconf magic
to check for emacs, xemacs, vi and remember the choice. Or do that with
shell when the above is executed. In either event, I think it would be fair
to abort with a message "no editor found, tempfile in /tmp/$foo left for
manual continuation" or some such.
Does that makes sense?
Dirk
--
Better to have an approximate answer to the right question than a precise
answer to the wrong question. -- John Tukey as quoted by John Chambers
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
