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?
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
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
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
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
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!
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
