On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, John Dennis wrote: > > Here is the summary as I see it: Good summary, thanks. > and we don't want conflicts. > > To get us to a situation where there can be two versions of emacs (a > reasonable goal) we have the following choices: > > * have a package which owns /usr/bin/emacs and install a script to start > the preferred version. emacs and emacs-nox both require this package. > > * use alternatives (yuck!), I don't think it's appropriate for this > purpose and its just plain nasty, but it solves the file conflict > problem. I really don't understand the reaction alternatives is getting. Is it really preferable to have every package create its own script, using its own environment variables and its own priorities, than to use a common infracstructure like alternatives? At least once the SA has learned alternatives, he knows what to expect from the different packages that use it. 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
