On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:40:23PM -0500, Chip Coldwell wrote: > > Let me clarify this -- /usr/bin/emacs must be either a symlink or a > > wrapper script unless the emacs and emacs-nox packages conflict. > > Given that, it seems to me like /etc/alternatives is the preferred > > solution -- at least it's a standard way to set up a symlink. It is > > definitely the right thing to do on Debian systems. > > I don't think it's preferred at all, and particularly not in this case. This > isn't a matter of chosing between two equivalent options -- it's just trying > to address the linked-with-GNOME thing. So it seems like the right thing to > do is use a simple script that runs the big version if it's installed, and > falls back to the svelte one otherwise. If all we want to do is provide users with a version of emacs that doesn't require the entire GNOME+X infrastructure, then I think two conflicting packages is the simplest thing to do. I see a wrapper script as being functionally equivalent to a symlink -- it chooses the GUI emacs unless it's not installed. The only difference is that it makes that decision at the time /usr/bin/emacs is invoked, whereas the symlink is created when the package is installed. So should I infer that Fedora has an ambivalent attitude toward the /etc/alternatives mechanism? Chip -- Charles M. "Chip" Coldwell Senior Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc 978-392-2426 -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
