On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:49:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, > > Martin Zobel-Helas: > > the following sentence in 2.5 leave much room for maneuver, therefor i > > would like to see a clarification how it should be interpreted: > > > > | Important programs, including those which one would expect to find on > > | any Unix-like system. If the expectation is that an experienced Unix > > | person who found it missing would say "What on earth is going on, where > > | is foo?", it must be an important package. > > > > Background here is, that i moved the package "ed" to optional years ago, > > and now have bug #776413 open, which disagrees on that move. > > Quite frankly, any experienced Unix person who still uses "ed" for, well, > anything at all really, should ask themselves where the hell they've been > during the last 20 years or so.
I do not think people are still using ed for interactive use (unless they have no other choice left) On the other hand, ed scripts are still in use: - by diff - by apt-get: the pdiff system use ed scripts so it is useful to keep the reference to what this is all about somewhere. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150129133229.GE18820@yellowpig
