On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 14:07, Aaron Griffin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Xavier <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Andreas Radke <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I have made a change to the patch package that "ed" is now an optional >>> dependency. I've searched through our svn and all I've found is that no >>> other package depends on ed. I think "ed" is still a widely used *nix >>> editor and you would expect it to be there. >>> >> >> Just out of curiosity, does anyone here actually use ed? I never used >> it, not even once :) > > I've only used it once or twice. It's definitely neat, I'll tell you that. > >> Anyway, it's a 100kb package with no deps, and according to you, well >> maintained upstream, so I don't think it's much important where it >> sits. > > I say we keep it in core, for now. ed is actually a POSIX required utility. > > It appears the standards require registration to view - ugh. The LSB > has a list of POSIX compliant utilities here: > http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/command.html > See all commands marked [1] >
I second keeping it in core. It's a standard and according to what I've heard, is extremely useful for visually impaired users. --Daenyth
