nano 2.0.8-1)
 

2008/9/4 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Eduardo Romero <k3nsai@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?

--
Roman Kyrylych (Ð*оман Кирилич)

nano 2.0.8-1)
 

2008/9/28 Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:
> 2008/9/4 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Eduardo Romero <k3nsai@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.

--
Roman Kyrylych (Ð*оман Кирилич)

nano 2.0.8-1)
 

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Roman Kyrylych
<roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/28 Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:
>> 2008/9/4 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Eduardo Romero <k3nsai@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?

nano 2.0.8-1)
 

Am Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:42:37 -0500
schrieb "Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Roman Kyrylych
> <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2008/9/28 Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:
> >> 2008/9/4 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
> >>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Eduardo Romero <k3nsai@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

nano 2.0.8-1)
 

Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Roman Kyrylych
<roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:


2008/9/28 Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:


2008/9/4 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:


On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Eduardo Romero <k3nsai@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?


OK with me.

nano 2.0.8-1)
 

Andreas Radke wrote:

Am Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:42:37 -0500
schrieb "Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:



On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Roman Kyrylych
<roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:


2008/9/28 Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:


2008/9/4 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:


On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Eduardo Romero <k3nsai@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.

nano 2.0.8-1)
 

2008/9/29 Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de>:
> 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.

ok

--
Roman Kyrylych (Ð*оман Кирилич)

nano 2.0.8-1)
 

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
> 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
>

Hi,

I just wanted to note that I often use line wrapping as it's more
convenient than doing it manually. I do however enable it using key
commands, and use nowrap in nanorc (since wrapping is so frustrating
when it comes to configuration etc).

I'd prefer if nano -w was used in the installer, or nowrap in the
default nanorc. Better than disabling a feature completely.

--
Anders Bergh

nano 2.0.8-1)
 

> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to note that I often use line wrapping as it's more
> convenient than doing it manually. I do however enable it using key
> commands, and use nowrap in nanorc (since wrapping is so frustrating
> when it comes to configuration etc).
>
> I'd prefer if nano -w was used in the installer, or nowrap in the
> default nanorc. Better than disabling a feature completely.
>
> --
> Anders Bergh

To be blunt, I agree that it was a mistake to remove this/an option.

ARCH is **NOT** Fedora in that we want to allow our users to have choice.
It is a fundamental part of the ARCH philosophy. The packager is NOT
suppose to making these choices for the user.

And not having the choice is NOT K.I.S.S. either, as has been discussed in
the past herein. And there was NO indication that things had changed
during the install either !!

If you don't like my being blunt... OH WELL !!

But you have my thanks for at least listening.

Very best regards;

Bob Finch




Liviu Librescu - În veci pomenirea lui.
(May his memory be eternal.)