On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Andrew Haley wrote: > 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. It is broken in the sense that rpmlint pukes on the current emacs spec file, and a lot of the jiggery-pokery in there is done to support the two different versions of emacs and the wrapper script+symlinks currently being used. 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
