On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 09:12 -0500, Chip Coldwell wrote: > > > > Well, then I guess my preference would be to eliminate the -nox subpackage > > from Fedora. We can continue to support it for RHEL, since there will be > > headless servers, etc, that don't need all the GUI infrastructure. > > > You're going to find that some reviewers balk heavily at this. Perhaps > even enough to veto a package that another reviewer is willing to > approve. Luckily I don't use emacs so I don't have to get involved with > that one :-) If you've been following this thread, you must realize that I am just blowing with the wind here. My initial notion was to use the /etc/alternatives infrastructure. That's what Debian does, and it seems like this is precisely the sort of thing that /etc/alternatives was meant to handle: two alternative methods of providing the same (or nearly the same) functionality. We could even fold in xemacs. That met with strenous objections. Then I suggested having two packages that conflict with each other. That met with strenous objections. Then I suggested dropping the emacs-nox package. That met with strenous objections. > What would be most productive in this conversation, though, is posting > the reason that you're thinking of changing the way emacs builds and > installs. I suppose I could, but given how this thread on a much narrower topic has gone, what hope is there of reaching consensus on the entire rpmlint output? 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
