>>>>> On 17 May 2000 10:04:04 -0700, Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Chris> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl R. Witty) writes: >> Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > > But a package which Recommends: www-browser needs no standard >> > > interface whatsoever, for example. >> > I believe they all fit this template: >> > command-line: <package-specific-program-name> <url> >> Is there a way to run "w3" (the Emacs Lisp web browser) from the >> command line? I don't know if there is; if there isn't, I don't >> think that should prevent emacs20 from "Provide"ing www-browser. xemacs -eval "(w3-fetch \"http://www.memepool.com\";)" Chris> Ok, that seems reasonable. But my point is that we should Chris> document *whatever* it is that we expect from packages that Chris> provide a virtual package. That way, if I have a program that Chris> expects to be able to lauch an URL from the command line Chris> (like, e.g. xchat), I can know whether or not the virtual Chris> package is going to fit my needs. Chris> If what you say is true, then a dependency on www-browser is Chris> not adequate for xchat. And it would be nice to know for Chris> sure, one way or the other. Chris> My original statement: "we should document the APIs provided Chris> by virtual packages." Maybe when it makes sense have things that say provide www-browser (dealt with through alternatives of course) provide a script www-browser that does the right thing in this case #!/bin/sh exec xemacs -eval "(w3-fetch \"$1\")" ? Jim -- @James LewisMoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Blessed Be! @ http://www.ioa.com/~dres | Linux is kewl! @"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
