Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
Adam Heath wrote: /usr/bin/vi should be an alternative for vi-compatible editors. /usr/bin/vi should then be an alternative that is hooked into /usr/bin/editor. But, but, but... How does it work if /usr/bin/vi is an alternative hooked into /usr/bin/editor? What package would own that hook? Just speaking academically since I am really not proposing we change this, would there need to be an vi-editor meta package just for the second level of indirection? And a similar emacs-editor meta package for emacs. And so on for each editor? I think this is too much. Same for emacs. Agreed on the basis of symmetry. (And I am an emacs user.) But from a pragmatic standpoint I think editor should be something for the untrained masses. Bob pgpIjAoK8ozzd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
Georg Neis wrote: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=121303 Elvis as the standard editor (priority 120) is not very convenient. Imagine a newbie thrown into elvis, and he will be lost, and cannot quit:( This bugreport says that the elvis package (a vi clone) uses a too high priority for the 'editor'-alternative (or for all alternatives?). Which changes do you propose? As I read the original bug report and apply my own spin onto it I see the original poster was concerned that a user invoking /usr/bin/editor is probably not wanting either of the traditional vi or emacs editors. They are probably a user that wants a simpler to use editor. Perhaps something more like 'nano' or 'ee' than like either vi or emacs. (Note that emacs does not supply an alternative for /usr/bin/editor.) I personally would not have had either elvis or vim supply an alternative for /usr/bin/editor. But elvis is only one of the bunch. The vim program also supplies itself as an alternative for /usr/bin/editor. Changing elvis I do not believe addresses that concern in any way unless vim is also coordinated in this action. I think there is much room for a judgement call to be made here. I am not sure what a good list of basic newbie editors would be appropriate for someone that invokes editor. Perhaps out of that list a good priority list for the alternatives could be proposed. As far as elvis being an alternative for /usr/bin/vi I think the current value is fine and I would not change it. I personally don't like the present defaults for /usr/bin/vi. But so much water has passed under the bridge that changing it now would be problematic. Bob pgppzwbiy25dc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:00:56PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: Georg Neis wrote: This bugreport says that the elvis package (a vi clone) uses a too high priority for the 'editor'-alternative (or for all alternatives?). Which changes do you propose? As I read the original bug report and apply my own spin onto it I see the original poster was concerned that a user invoking /usr/bin/editor is probably not wanting either of the traditional vi or emacs editors. They are probably a user that wants a simpler to use editor. Perhaps something more like 'nano' or 'ee' than like either vi or emacs. (Note that emacs does not supply an alternative for /usr/bin/editor.) I personally would not have had either elvis or vim supply an alternative for /usr/bin/editor. /usr/bin/editor is not only something invoked directly. It's also invoked by programs as the default editor. And, if vim is the only editor installed on the system, it had better be the default editor for such programs! (I set $EDITOR for my ordinary user anyway, granted, but not for root, which uses editor for such things as visudo.) I don't mind lowering the priority of vi clones, or whatever; but please don't try to get them removed from the editor alternative. It's quite sufficient to have higher-priority editors installed by default. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
Am 25.07.03 um 09:21:47 schrieb Colin Watson: /usr/bin/editor is not only something invoked directly. It's also invoked by programs as the default editor. Shouldn't that be sensible-editor? Bye, Mike -- |=| Michael Piefel |=| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin |=| Tel. (+49 30) 2093 3831
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 11:05:25AM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote: Am 25.07.03 um 09:21:47 schrieb Colin Watson: /usr/bin/editor is not only something invoked directly. It's also invoked by programs as the default editor. Shouldn't that be sensible-editor? Which calls editor if $VISUAL and $EDITOR aren't set, yes. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:21:47 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: /usr/bin/editor is not only something invoked directly. It's also invoked by programs as the default editor. And, if vim is the only editor installed on the system, it had better be the default editor for such programs! Is that not an argument for emacs also providing /usr/bin/editor alternatives, since emacs may be the sole editor on the system? manoj -- If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library? Lily Tomlin Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
Michael Piefel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am 25.07.03 um 09:21:47 schrieb Colin Watson: /usr/bin/editor is not only something invoked directly. It's also invoked by programs as the default editor. Shouldn't that be sensible-editor? No. see policy. sensible-editor is just for programs for which it is very hard to adapt a program to make use of the EDITOR or PAGER variables cu andreas
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:22:42AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:21:47 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: /usr/bin/editor is not only something invoked directly. It's also invoked by programs as the default editor. And, if vim is the only editor installed on the system, it had better be the default editor for such programs! Is that not an argument for emacs also providing /usr/bin/editor alternatives, since emacs may be the sole editor on the system? Yes, I see no reason why emacs (or emacsclient or whatever - I don't use it myself) shouldn't provide an editor alternative. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
Am 25.07.03 um 11:38:33 schrieb Andreas Metzler: No. see policy. sensible-editor is just for programs for which it is very hard to adapt a program to make use of the EDITOR or PAGER variables Okay, so when somebody is not able to set their EDITOR variable, isn't it quite safe to assume that they are not the people who are satisfied with vi as their editor? In summary: Someone said vi should be an alternative for editor, because /usr/bin/editor is called from other programs; that suggested you can't use vi then from there. Which isn't true, just set EDITOR. On my system, /usr/bin/editor can be a dangling symlink, it never gets called. Bye, Mike -- |=| Michael Piefel |=| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin |=| Tel. (+49 30) 2093 3831
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:43:52PM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote: Okay, so when somebody is not able to set their EDITOR variable, isn't it quite safe to assume that they are not the people who are satisfied with vi as their editor? It could also be that they are people who only ever uses vi and therefore have no other editors installed on their systems. Completely excluding vi from the alternatives for editor isn't desparately helpful. It may be wise to prefer other editors but that's a different matter. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever.
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
Colin Watson wrote: On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 11:05:25AM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote: Am 25.07.03 um 09:21:47 schrieb Colin Watson: /usr/bin/editor is not only something invoked directly. It's also invoked by programs as the default editor. Shouldn't that be sensible-editor? Which calls editor if $VISUAL and $EDITOR aren't set, yes. Interesting that if sensible-editor fails to find $VISUAL, $EDITOR, 'editor' that it tries 'ae' and then 'vi'. I could find no reference to /usr/bin/ae in the package contents of any Debian package. Does it exist? (I remember it being an 'ee' type of program.) In the current distribution it should probably call 'nano' as the first fallback. I will file a minor bug in a little bit about it. Bob pgpRd02Rr7C5d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
Colin Watson wrote: Bob Proulx wrote: I personally would not have had either elvis or vim supply an alternative for /usr/bin/editor. I don't mind lowering the priority of vi clones, or whatever; but please don't try to get them removed from the editor alternative. It's quite sufficient to have higher-priority editors installed by default. Just to clarify, I am not advocating a change here. What I meant was that I would not have done it that way myself had I been doing it when it was originally done. But having been done so long ago it should probably stay like it is. Like many things, once broken it must always be broken or something else breaks. Bob pgpTCKL3drhvp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 10:11:05AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: Colin Watson wrote: On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 11:05:25AM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote: Shouldn't that be sensible-editor? Which calls editor if $VISUAL and $EDITOR aren't set, yes. Interesting that if sensible-editor fails to find $VISUAL, $EDITOR, 'editor' that it tries 'ae' and then 'vi'. I could find no reference to /usr/bin/ae in the package contents of any Debian package. Does it exist? (I remember it being an 'ee' type of program.) It used to exist, but was removed back in 2001; see bug #110678. In the current distribution it should probably call 'nano' as the first fallback. That's exactly what the version in testing and unstable does. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:21:47 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: /usr/bin/editor is not only something invoked directly. It's also invoked by programs as the default editor. And, if vim is the only editor installed on the system, it had better be the default editor for such programs! Is that not an argument for emacs also providing /usr/bin/editor alternatives, since emacs may be the sole editor on the system? It might just not be very useful by default since Emacs usually takes quite some time to startup, and therefore people prefer to use emacsclient if they really set $EDITOR to something emacsish. OTOH, for emacsclient to work, you actually need some code in your .emacs, like (add-hook 'after-init-hook 'server-start) P.S.: Tip of the day (add-hook 'server-done-hook (lambda () (shell-command screen -r -X select `cat ~/tmp/emacsclient-caller`))) -- CYa, Mario
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Bob Proulx wrote: As I read the original bug report and apply my own spin onto it I see the original poster was concerned that a user invoking /usr/bin/editor is probably not wanting either of the traditional vi or emacs editors. They are probably a user that wants a simpler to use editor. Perhaps something more like 'nano' or 'ee' than like either vi or emacs. (Note that emacs does not supply an alternative for /usr/bin/editor.) I personally would not have had either elvis or vim supply an alternative for /usr/bin/editor. /usr/bin/vi should be an alternative for vi-compatible editors. /usr/bin/vi should then be an alternative that is hooked into /usr/bin/editor. Same for emacs.
Re: update-alternatives priorities for editors
Adam Heath wrote: /usr/bin/vi should be an alternative for vi-compatible editors. /usr/bin/vi should then be an alternative that is hooked into /usr/bin/editor. Yeah, I've always wanted to resolve 6 levels of symlinks to get to my editor. -- see shy jo pgpULHcwFmFrZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
