On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Matthew Miller wrote: > 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. I don't see your point. With /etc/alternatives, you could have both GNU emacs (X and no-X versions) and Lucid/XEmacs installed simultaneously and each user could run the one he prefers. Those who have no preference would get the systemwide default set in /etc/alternatives. 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
