On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 12:47 -0500, Chip Coldwell wrote: > On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Matthew Miller wrote: > > 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. With alternatives the commands are supposed to be functionally identical. To the best of my knowledge this is not true with the different emacs variants. -- John Dennis <jdennis@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
