Russ Allbery dijo [Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:02:01PM -0800]: > (...) > I think there are three options, and I'd love to get feedback on which of > those three options we should take. > > 1. Status quo: there is an undocumented editor virtual package, Policy > says that nothing has to provide or depend on it, and some random > collection of editors provide it. I think this is a bad place to be, > so I would hope we can rule out sticking with that status quo. > > 2. Document editor and recommend everyone implement it properly. Since > we're going to allow packages to depend on editor, I think providing it > would need to be a should, so that's going to be a lot of buggy (but > not RC-buggy) editor packages. But it would get us to a clean > dependency system. (I will leave it to someone else to tackle this for > pager if someone really wants to.) > > 3. Mark editor obsolete, leaving only the alternative, and have people > just use that directly and assume it exists. (My previous patch.) > (...) > I have a previous proposed patch in this thread for option 3. For the > sake of completeness, here's a proposed patch for option 2. > > I'd love to have people weigh in on this. I know it's currently the > holiday season, so I'll probably need to ping this bug again in a week or > two to get more opinions.
I lean towards version 2. Yes, several packages will be buggy - but, as you mention, not RC-buggy. It's not *that* many packages. And it's the correct solution. Of course, I was not familiar with this bug, and am replying just after skimming it (trying to follow the most salient details), so this should just be read as a "leaning towards" and not as an "endorsement" for the patch in question.
