emacs and /etc/alternatives

[Warren Togami]

Chip Coldwell wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Ian Burrell wrote:
>> I thought alternatives had a priority mechanism where the highest
>> priority link is used.  emacs-x could be made higher priority than
>> emacs-nox and would be used if it is installed.
> 
> You're right.  So that's an argument in favor of using the
> /etc/alternatives stuff.
> 
> Chip
> 

If both are functionally similar, yet the script solution avoids changes 
to the filesystem *and* is much simpler, why not stick to the script 
solution?

alternatives *only* makes sense if there are numerous other programs 
that provide "emacs" functionality that can be reasonably expected to be 
called emacs.

The other variants of emacs have had other names for ages.  This makes 
sense for sendmail/postfix/exim but not emacs.

Please avoid this unnecessary complication.

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com