Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Alternatives system added
To: None <>
From: Martin S. Weber <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 01/25/2005 15:15:54
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:55:12PM +0100, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> Hi all,
> as we have been discussing during the last days, I've added the alternatives
> framework to pkgsrc and converted nvi and vim* to use it.
> When you decide to update any of these packages, pkg_alternatives should be
> pulled in as a dependency and, after the installation, you should be able
> to run the installed package using the common 'vi', 'ex' and 'view' names.

Why mandatory ? I am making a difference between vi (/usr/bin/vi) and vim
(from pkgsrc), and I am actually expecting to have /usr/bin/vi invoked
when I type "vi" and /usr/pkg/bin/vim invoked when I type vim. I don't
want these two to be mixed. IMO (yeah I missed the discussion before, it
seemed to technical for me to contribute) leave the choice to the user
whether he WANTS to treat some pkg as replacement for another pkg and/or
for a base binary. Please change this so it isn't forced on me.

I don't think the alternatives system is a bad thing, I'm just saying
leave the choice to the user please. [maybe vim vs. vi is an extremely
bad example as vi is in base. I see the point for tcl83 vs. tcl or ruby16 vs.
ruby18 etc. but hey, vi(m) ?!]


-Martin Weber