ralph wrote:
 > Hi Paul,
 > 
 > > i thought we were talking about (the fedora equivalent of)
 > > /etc/alternatives, not installed pathname:
 > 
 > Nope.
 > 
 > > surely the nmh package requirement isn't on a a specific provider of
 > > {/usr}/bin/vi, is it?
 > 
 > Yep.  Please examine
 > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nmh/blob/master/f/nmh.spec,
 > especially line eight.  :-)
 > 
 > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives#Usage_within_Fedora
 > says Fedora's `alternatives' system mustn't be used for vi, and explains
 > why.

well, part of me wants to take offense at that, since it's not like
vim is completely compatible with the "real" vi.  nvi is much closer,
in that regard, and should really be the rewrite that gets to use the
/usr/bin/vi name.  but i take their point -- as much as i tried to
preserve finger-habit compatibility in vile, there's no way a user
wouldn't be surprised by getting vile instead of either vim or nvi.

none of which has much bearing on nmh.  so regarding the real issue
we have at hand, i agree with david's proposal:

 > The net result is that I'm thinking of these changes to the spec:
 > 
 > -Requires:      /usr/bin/vi
 > -Requires:      /usr/sbin/sendmail
 > +Suggests:      /usr/bin/vi
 > +Suggests:      /usr/sbin/sendmail

paul
=----------------------
paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 41.0 degrees)


-- 
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Reply via email to