On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 20:24 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:27:44PM -0500, John Dennis wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 12:02 -0500, Chip Coldwell wrote: > > > Currently, there are two versions of GNU emacs that can be installed: > > > emacs and emacs-nox. The latter runs in a terminal emulator, the > > > former uses X windows. I'm cleaning up the emacs spec file to meet > > > the Fedora review requirements, and I think the right thing to do > > > would be to have > > > > > > /usr/bin/emacs-22.0.95 > > > /usr/bin/emacs-22.0.95-nox > > > /usr/bin/emacs -> /etc/alternatives/emacs > > > /etc/alternatives/emacs -> /usr/bin/emacs-22.0.95[-nox] > > > > > > In other words, let the /etc/alternatives symlink select which of the > > > two versions runs by default. > > > > > > Is this the right thing to do? > > > If so, should the emacs-nox package have a "Conflicts: emacs" and > > > vice-versa? > > > > My first question is why we have both an X capable and non-X capable > > version. > > Good question, I guess emacs-nox has the benefit of not pulling in > half of the X11 libs and is therefore well suited for an X-less > minimal system. Er, not as such. The total disk footprint of _every_ base X library is about 6M, which includes several that emacs does not depend on. emacs-nox weighs in at about 5M, but plain emacs is closer to 22M. So although emacs-nox is smaller than emacs, you drop more from the emacs package itself than from the dependency chain. I would posit, however, that machines where the extra ~20M of disk reclaimed is meaningful have larger problems than whether to install the X libs. - ajax -- 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
