Andreas Radke wrote:
Am Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:42:37 -0500
schrieb "Aaron Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Roman Kyrylych
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2008/9/28 Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2008/9/4 Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Eduardo Romero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 14:57 +0200, Andreas Radke wrote:
I have disabled all line wrapping to prevent broken config
files like this: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11290
-Please signoff (also ncurses related)
-Andy
Just a thought, and I hope is not too late. Wouldn't it be
better to make the installer use 'nano -w' instead of just
'nano'? We have just removed a functionality from the nano
package by disabling line wrapping from the package itself.
Also, I'm having a hard time getting used to not type, 'nano -w'
when I want to edit a file, that command just doesn't work
anymore.
I apparently had line wrapping turned on in my /etc/nanorc too
that yelled at me. I kinda agree with Eduardo here. Maybe we
should re-enable this.
There's a bug about missing -w in installer:
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11468
So should we add -w to installer and re-enable word-wrapping in
nano, or should I close this bugreport as "Fixed" now?
I've just closed it as a duplicate of
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11290 but still the proper fix would
be to use nano -w in installer instead of disabling -w in nano, IMO.
Or maybe we should use "wrap" in the default nanorc?
woohoo. such a small editor making so much noise with only one option.
i prefer to not touch the upstream nanorc we install. after many
requests i followed Fedora and many other major distributions and
disabled the line wrapping completely via configure.
i don't know any good situation when line wrapping is useful expect in
writing mails. but who is using nano for that task? (i guess alpine
users go with pico).
so why do some people want that wrapping back?
i think a small note about no line wrapping in our installer when it
shows the choise for vi/nano is much more than needed.
-Andy
Sorry, I didn't see this email by the time I replied to the other. But
well, is simple, why take functionality from a package? We are supposed
to be as close to upstream as possible, and well, some users do use the
feature, we cannot conclude nobody use the feature. You know users of
all kinds can have weird uses for common applications. Not that this
nano usage is weird, but you get it. Using nano -w in the installer was
the recommended procedure by the original bug reporter.
