Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.0.0 Severity: wishlist Hi! There's currently no documentation what interface alternatives for /usr/bin/editor are required to implement. I've looked at existing providers, and it looks that the only shared part is:
* editor filename * editor +42 filename It's conceivable that some GUI-only editors don't implement the former, but none of them declare an alternative for /usr/bin/editor. The latter is implemented by every current provider that's not written in assembly (the only offender is orphaned, with popcon vote 11). Legislating the latter requirement would allow callers to use this functionality. Currently, some callers already do so, sometimes unconditionally, sometimes with a goofy whitelist of known-good editors. Let's tell them they are allowed to do so. Meow! -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT prefers unstable-debug APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (150, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 4.13.0-debug-ubsan-00222-g22e5e0f1edea (SMP w/6 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init) Versions of packages debian-policy depends on: ii libjs-sphinxdoc 1.5.6-2 debian-policy recommends no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: pn doc-base <none> -- no debconf information
