emacs and /etc/alternatives

[Chip Coldwell]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Matthew Miller wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:40:23PM -0500, Chip Coldwell wrote:
> > Let me clarify this -- /usr/bin/emacs must be either a symlink or a
> > wrapper script unless the emacs and emacs-nox packages conflict.
> > Given that, it seems to me like /etc/alternatives is the preferred
> > solution -- at least it's a standard way to set up a symlink.  It is
> > definitely the right thing to do on Debian systems.
> 
> I don't think it's preferred at all, and particularly not in this case. This
> isn't a matter of chosing between two equivalent options -- it's just trying
> to address the linked-with-GNOME thing. So it seems like the right thing to
> do is use a simple script that runs the big version if it's installed, and
> falls back to the svelte one otherwise.

If all we want to do is provide users with a version of emacs that
doesn't require the entire GNOME+X infrastructure, then I think two
conflicting packages is the simplest thing to do.

I see a wrapper script as being functionally equivalent to a symlink
-- it chooses the GUI emacs unless it's not installed.  The only
difference is that it makes that decision at the time /usr/bin/emacs
is invoked, whereas the symlink is created when the package is
installed.

So should I infer that Fedora has an ambivalent attitude toward the
/etc/alternatives mechanism?

Chip

-- 
Charles M. "Chip" Coldwell
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc
978-392-2426