Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de> wrote: >>There seems to be no point of jupp sharing the editorrc alternative >>with joe, especially considering that neither program is compatible >>with the shipped rc files of the other anymore. > > The problem is that joe/jupp use argv[0] + "rc" as name to look > for, so it’s editorrc for both of them.
Yes, I am aware of it, but the point is that a combination like joe selected as the alternative for editor, and /etc/jupp/jupprc for editorrc (or the other way around) won't work. >>Apparently, at the moment, jupp uses only one alternative for >>/etc/jupp/editorrc. Do you plan to include the rc files from joe-jupp >>as alternatives as well? > > They are already included, joe-jupp contains its own maintainer > scripts enabling them. Sorry, I checked in the wrong place. >>If so, the correct fix is to use an >>alternative name different from the one used by joe. > > But the name must still be editorrc… No, the alternative name can be different from from the name of the file referring to it. > (which, by the way, could be a slave to editor, couldn’t it?) According to the changelog entry for joe 3.5-1, sadly not: * Stop shipping fixed /etc/joe/editorrc and instead add all our versions as alternatives to it. Unfortunately it doesn't work as a slave alternative to the main editor alternative, but this is as close as it can get, closes: #269334. (Unless, perhaps, update-alternatives changed in the meantime?) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org