#875531 debian-policy: please require alternatives to support "editor +42 filename"

Package:
debian-policy
Source:
debian-policy
Submitter:
Adam Borowski
Date:
2021-05-19 12:09:04 UTC
Severity:
normal
#875531#5
Date:
2017-09-11 23:02:23 UTC
From:
To:
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!
#875531#12
Date:
2021-04-02 12:21:32 UTC
From:
To:
Hi!
Now that you folks are dealing with the "editor" virtual package, and,
what interests me here, the alternative for /usr/bin/editor -- could you
please process this proposal as well, and either accept or close it?

My point is that, all but one (e3) current alternatives allow positioning
the cursor on a given line, and various users take inconsistent approach
as to when this feature can be used.


Meow!
#875531#17
Date:
2021-04-02 17:46:55 UTC
From:
To:
Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:

Thank you for doing the research to confirm this is supported by all the
editor alternatives!  That makes this fairly easy.  Attached is a proposed
diff.  This is on top of the diff for #682347; it's separable, but I'd
prefer to get that seconded and merged first.

Note that, based on your research, this will make e3 RC-buggy.  (Obviously
this wouldn't be RC for this upcoming release.)
#875531#22
Date:
2021-05-18 07:27:27 UTC
From:
To:
Hello,

Seconded.
#875531#25
Date:
2021-05-18 11:42:24 UTC
From:
To:
Inline an editorial bit that I suggest for what I consider better flow.
                    -------^--
                    themselves


Seconded.
#875531#30
Date:
2021-05-18 19:11:08 UTC
From:
To:
Hello,

Thanks.  I looked at applying this patch but the version we have in git
doesn't apply to 'next' without first applying the patch in #682347.
Mattia, would you be interested in reviewing and seconding that one too,
so I can apply both?
#875531#33
Date:
2021-05-19 12:06:58 UTC
From:
To:
I commented on it, as I think I need a few more details before seconding
it.

Honestly, I think it would be better if you just applied this, much
smaller, change to "next", and rebase #682347 on top of it :)