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
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
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 s
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,
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
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
> suffi
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
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
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 tha
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 ins
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 fo
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 prog
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
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 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
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
>
On 03-Dec-02, 15:30 (CST), Michael Cardenas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm fixing our package for ibmjava2-jre, but the man page should be
> clarified. Are there any accepted values to use with
> update-alternatives? Is it listed in some other documentation
> somewhere that I just didn't see?
The man page for update-alternatives does not give a range for the
possible values for priority.
As a result, when I created a package for the lindowsos warehosue for
ibmjava2-jre, I used a priority of 99, assuming that 100 was the
maximum.
The problem arose when a user installed another jre, s
18 matches
Mail list logo
