On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:52:33PM +0100, Miloslav Trmac wrote: > > 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? > If you completely ignore the original purpose of alternatives and focus > only on the mechanism, following a few symlinks set up by alternatives > is actually both more effective and simpler than starting bash to > execute the script. The overhead of bash vs. a symlink is negligible when we're talking about launching *emacs*. The real difference is: one is trivial and self-contained, whereas the other relies on an whole infrastructure. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> -- 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
