On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 16:32 -0800, Carl Worth wrote: > On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:17:40 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > The user can set PREFERRED_EMACS to x or nox or kde or wx or whatever > > interfaces the future GNU emacs supports. If its installed on this > > system, it'll be invoked, else the script falls back to looking for an > > emacs to run. > > > > If there were a multitude of options, you could even set your own > > fallback order. > > And people have complained about /etc/alternatives as being "unclean" > somehow? > > What possible benefit is there to re-inventing all of its > functionality on a package-by-package basis like this? > There's no benefit to solving it package by package but alternatives doesn't solve it at all. alternatives takes a user preference and makes it a system preference. However you solve this, do it in a way that the user can select their preferred version. BTW, in case it wasn't clear, my change is the addition of one variable on one line over what is currently in the emacs package. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
