Peter Oliver venit, vidit, dixit 2026-02-16 16:44:13: > Michael J Gruber wrote: > > > In particular, if the builtin lesspipe is usable, the less package > > should make no opinionated choice packagaing an external lesspipe.sh and > > enabling it bt default. > > If I understand you correctly, this implies there is a lesspipe.sh built-in > to upstream less, but my understanding is there is no such thing (beyond a > brief example provided in the less manpage). > > As I understand it, Fedora traditionally packaged and enabled a lesspipe.sh > written by ourselves, in the less package. In Fedora 43, we switched to > using a lesspipe.sh taken from lesspipe.org (the exact same one that the > package review under discussion is for), still in the less package. > > Apologies if this is already obvious to everyone in the thread, but it > confused me for a moment, so I thought it was worth spelling out.
That's a very good point, and you're the first one to answer my question in that respect. If the new package really uses the same source, then why do we need it at all? Maybe because not all Fedoras (and RHELs) use that version of the less package? The less package's log talks about replacing the built-in lesspipe by the external source, but I don't know what the built-in is. Maybe it's just misleading wording for using LESSOPEN by default. Michael -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
