[arch-dev-public] nano -w (was: Re: [signoff] nano 2.0.8-1)

[Eduardo Romero]

Andreas Radke wrote:
> Am Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:42:37 -0500
> schrieb "Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
>
>   
>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Roman Kyrylych
>> <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> 2008/9/28 Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com>:
>>>       
>>>> 2008/9/4 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
>>>>         
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Eduardo Romero <k3nsai at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 14:57 +0200, Andreas Radke wrote:
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> I have disabled all line wrapping to prevent broken config
>>>>>>> files like this: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11290
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Please signoff (also ncurses related)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Andy
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Just a thought, and I hope is not too late. Wouldn't it be
>>>>>> better to make the installer use 'nano -w' instead of just
>>>>>> 'nano'? We have just removed a functionality from the nano
>>>>>> package by disabling line wrapping from the package itself.
>>>>>> Also, I'm having a hard time getting used to not type, 'nano -w'
>>>>>> when I want to edit a file, that command just doesn't work
>>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I apparently had line wrapping turned on in my /etc/nanorc too
>>>>> that yelled at me. I kinda agree with Eduardo here. Maybe we
>>>>> should re-enable this.
>>>>>           
>>>> There's a bug about missing -w in installer:
>>>> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11468
>>>> So should we add -w to installer and re-enable word-wrapping in
>>>> nano, or should I close this bugreport as "Fixed" now?
>>>>         
>>> I've just closed it as a duplicate of
>>> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11290 but still the proper fix would
>>> be to use nano -w in installer instead of disabling -w in nano, IMO.
>>>       
>> Or maybe we should use "wrap" in the default nanorc?
>>
>>     
>
> woohoo. such a small editor making so much noise with only one option.
>
> i prefer to not touch the upstream nanorc we install. after many
> requests i followed Fedora and many other major distributions and
> disabled the line wrapping completely via configure.
>
> i don't know any good situation when line wrapping is useful expect in
> writing mails. but who is using nano for that task? (i guess alpine
> users go with pico).
>
> so why do some people want that wrapping back?
>
> i think a small note about no line wrapping in our installer when it
> shows the choise for vi/nano is much more than needed.
>
> -Andy
>   
Sorry, I didn't see this email by the time I replied to the other. But 
well, is simple, why take functionality from a package? We are supposed 
to be as close to upstream as possible, and well, some users do use the 
feature, we cannot conclude nobody use the feature. You know users of 
all kinds can have weird uses for common applications. Not that this 
nano usage is weird, but you get it. Using nano -w in the installer was 
the recommended procedure by the original bug reporter.