On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:52:03PM -0400, Asheesh Laroia wrote: > >I personally don't find the suggested use of a dpkg diversion here very > >satisfying. I wonder if it would be better to make /usr/bin/pico an > >alternative. > > As on update on this bug: > > As I understand the altneratives system, you guys need to modify nano to > use alternatives. Is that right? (Should I open a bug against nano for > it to use alternatives to accommodate pico?) > > If so, will you be doing this? Or does further discussion need to happen?
Yes; probably my previous comments were not too correct as I had no idea about the alpine development, and the existence of a "pico" under a free licence. I am willing to maintain pico under alternatives; please file a bug so we can discuss which should have greater priority. This change is, evidently, not targetted for etch, so any upload doing this I'd like to postpone until after the release. Jordi -- Jordi Mallach Pérez -- Debian developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sindominio.net/ GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/
