On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 14:07, Aaron Griffin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Xavier <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Andreas Radke <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> I have made a change to the patch package that "ed" is now an optional
>>> dependency. I've searched through our svn and all I've found is that no
>>> other package depends on ed. I think "ed" is still a widely used *nix
>>> editor and you would expect it to be there.
>> Just out of curiosity, does anyone here actually use ed? I never used
>> it, not even once
> I've only used it once or twice. It's definitely neat, I'll tell you that.
>> Anyway, it's a 100kb package with no deps, and according to you, well
>> maintained upstream, so I don't think it's much important where it
> I say we keep it in core, for now. ed is actually a POSIX required utility.
> It appears the standards require registration to view - ugh. The LSB
> has a list of POSIX compliant utilities here:
> See all commands marked 
I second keeping it in core. It's a standard and according to what
I've heard, is extremely useful for visually impaired users.