On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 09 March 2007 12:56:01 Chip Coldwell wrote: > > 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. > > Forgive my ignorance, but isn't alternatives a sitewide thing, where > preference for emacs vs emacs-nox might be a per user thing? How is that different from a shell script in /usr/bin/emacs that chooses a sitewide default? If there is /usr/bin/emacs -> /etc/alternatives/emacs /etc/alternatives/emacs -> /usr/bin/emacs-22.0.95 and /usr/bin/xemacs /usr/bin/emacs-22.0.95-nox The user can still "alias emacs=xemacs" or put a wrapper script in $HOME/bin. Functionally, the /etc/alternatives is only setting a systemwide default, precisely the same thing the systemwide wrapper script does, but does it in a standardized way instead of making up our own per-package standard. 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
