On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:27:11PM -0500, Chip Coldwell wrote: > 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. Your point about xemacs is a very strong argument for not using alternatives. That's *exactly* what it's not for. > That met with strenous objections. Right. :) > Then I suggested having two packages that conflict with each other. > That met with strenous objections. Right, there's no really good reason to do that. > Then I suggested dropping the emacs-nox package. > That met with strenous objections. But, not very convincing ones. :) -- 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
