emacs and /etc/alternatives

[Patrice Dumas]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 11:05:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> writes:
> > Or we just throw out the non-gui emacs and only ship the one that can do both
> 
> +1.  Building emacs without X support was pretty pointless a dozen years
> ago, and it is far more so now.  What other packages do we build
> multiple versions of to avoid pulling in dependencies?

There is also vim. I guess it is not exactly the same split, but it
seems to be split to keep a minimal vim-minimal.

In my opinion it would be right to build 2 versions of all the packages
that have a console version and a X version to minimize deps for the
console version, such that it may be installed on X-less computers. 
It is really not pointless, I don't install X and even less gtk on some
servers, and I may want emacs (now I use vi, but I used emacs in the
past ;-). This is not going to be a lot of packages anyway.

--
Pat