| 1 |
On Monday 08 September 2003 10:27, Spider wrote: |
| 2 |
> begin quote |
| 3 |
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:08:23 +0900 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Jason Stubbs <jasonbstubbs@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > However, checking /etc/make.profile/packages, I find that nano has in |
| 7 |
> > fact been removed. In fact, there isn't any editor listed as part of |
| 8 |
> > the base system. Is this correct? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Nope. thats incorrect. : |
| 11 |
> *virtual/editor |
| 12 |
> is listed in packages, which will be satisfied by any editor providing |
| 13 |
> just that. "editor" |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> and the virtuals file gives: |
| 16 |
> virtual/editor app-editors/nano |
| 17 |
> that nano is the default editor if no other is installed. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Well, I've confirmed that this is the case on my system. However... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
As I said in my other post, app-editors/xemacs is installed due to something |
| 22 |
depending on it. It seems that because xemacs is installed and necessary and |
| 23 |
nano is installed but not in the world file, depclean wants to get rid of |
| 24 |
nano. This seems like normal correct behaviour to me. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
What I was wondering about was whether nano should be listed in the world file |
| 27 |
on a fresh installation. All the other virtuals that get satisfied during |
| 28 |
installation are installed manually, no? Perhaps an editor should be |
| 29 |
installed manually as well... BTW this not a vi vs. nano type question ;-) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
Jason |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives