Matthew Miller writes: > 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. Exactly. This is a change without a purpose. The existing solution works perfectly well: it ain't broken, so don't fix it. Andrew. -- 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
