On 22-Nov-06, 14:24 (CST), Jan Christoph Nordholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, dear policy list:
>
> Is there a good reason not to re-add "editor" to the list? This would just
> acknowledge the present situation, as most editor-like packages provide this
> virtual package anyway, disregarding its removal from the list.
No, it's a useless virtual package. *Programs* should be following the
correct sequence VISUAL/EDITOR/sensible-editor, as documented in policy.
As for people, nobody using the unix command line these days is going
to expect "editor file" to do anything useful. Even if you believe that
such a person exists, do you really want them in nvi? (Does anyone
remember the original DOS EDIT.COM? Basically, an ed(1) clone. Imagine
how useful that was to your average DOS user.)
Remember, the whole point of virtual packages is to allow other packages
to have a generic dependency *WITH A DEFINED INTERFACE*. There is no
such defined interface for the proposed virtual package "editor". This
was the reason "editor" was rejected as a virtual package, and packages
that "Provides: editor" have bugs.
All IMO,
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
