On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 05:19:44PM -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > Is this a requirement on vim-minimal or just a requirement for a posix > compliant editor to be available? On /bin/vi. More precisely fcron has a build time check, with a configure flag --with-editor, that defaults to AC_PATH_PROG(FOUND_FCRON_EDITOR, vi. And cronie uses _PATH_VI from paths.h. I don't think there is a posix compliance needed as all. The posix compliance argument, is here to justify vim-minimal as 'not a bad choice for a default editor'. But once again if you have an idea for a better default editor choice, just do the infrastructure, then provide patches for packages that need a default editor and be done. > Or let me ask it this way. Right now in the entire repository is > vim-minimal the only editor which is being explicitly required to > filling this fallback role? If it is, enshrine that as policy before I Why do we need a policy here? > get a chance to submit a package which falls back to nano. If its not > the only editor being used as a fallback in the repository, then some > compromise needs to be worked out so don't have people dragging in > multiple editors to fill the fallback capacity. I am not sure a compromise is needed. Just let the packagers do what they prefer, in the constraints of upstream choices. If somebody is interested in modularizing better the default editor handling, for example with something built around xdg-open, or around xdg-edit no problem, I think that all the packagers will gladly accept the change. When pointed to it, all the packagers of packages I reviewed accepted to use htmlview, and everybody accepted to switch to xdg-open when Ville filled bugs with patches. There was a thread about how to choose a default editor on the packaging list some time ago, I don't remember exactly what was the conclusion, but I pointed out that using xdg-open was dangerous, because it is not clear what xdg-open applie to a text file means, because it may mean editing it, viewing it, and maybe other action. Of course finding out packages that need a default editor will require some research, but I think that a mail on devel list should be enough. There is another package which needs a default editor, grace, and we used nedit for the lack of anything better, given that grace (and nedit) use Motif. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
