Chip Coldwell wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Ian Burrell wrote:
I thought alternatives had a priority mechanism where the highest
priority link is used. emacs-x could be made higher priority than
emacs-nox and would be used if it is installed.
You're right. So that's an argument in favor of using the
/etc/alternatives stuff.
Chip
If both are functionally similar, yet the script solution avoids changes
to the filesystem *and* is much simpler, why not stick to the script
solution?
alternatives *only* makes sense if there are numerous other programs
that provide "emacs" functionality that can be reasonably expected to be
called emacs.
The other variants of emacs have had other names for ages. This makes
sense for sendmail/postfix/exim but not emacs.
Please avoid this unnecessary complication.
Warren Togami
wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx
--
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
