Bug#830580: Patch to install alternatives

[Josh Triplett]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 09:02:35PM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:29:15PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 01:10:18PM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> > > Thanks for the patch!
> > > 
> > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:27:23PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > From 8d4641be71797ef7d54a3067f2c15cb374b73b16 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > From: Josh Triplett <josh at joshtriplett.org>
> > > > Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 23:21:37 -0700
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] Install alternatives for ex, rvim, rview, vi, vim, view, and
> > > >  vimdiff
> > > 
> > > I don't think it makes sense to install an alternative for vi.  Neovim
> > > is explicitly dropping various "vi compatibility" pieces of
> > > functionality.
> > 
> > Neovim is still an implementation of vi, and acts like vi; it just
> > doesn't keep "bug-compatibility".  If you didn't have any other vi
> > implementation installed, I think it still makes sense for "vi" to
> > invoke nvim.
> 
> Ack.
> 
> > > Why are these alternatives 29 when editor is on-par with vim.basic at
> > > 30?
> > 
> > I was trying to be conservative, to avoid surprising anyone who installs
> > neovim to experiment with it but expects "vim" to have complete vim
> > compatibility.
> 
> From a quick experiment, update-alternatives preserves the existing
> auto-selected alternative when another is installed at the same
> priority.  If vim is already installed, it stays selected.  If neovim is
> installed first and later vim, then neovim stays the selected
> alternative.

That seems reasonable.  In that case, setting them all to priority 30
seems fine to me.

- Josh Triplett