Bug 1270712
| Summary: | Maybe enable syntax highlight by default? | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Milan Crha <mcrha> |
| Component: | nano | Assignee: | Kamil Dudka <kdudka> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 22 | CC: | dwmw2, h.reindl, jaswinder, kdudka |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | EasyFix, Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | nano-2.4.2-2.fc24 nano-2.4.2-2.fc23 nano-2.3.6-7.fc22 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2015-11-08 06:51:17 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Milan Crha
2015-10-12 08:54:59 UTC
I am not aware of any historical reason not to enable nano syntax highlighting by default. It is just because upstream does not enable it by default. I will change the configuration file as you suggest. Unless anybody objects, I will do it only in rawhide so that users of stable Fedora do not need to merge their own changes of the configuration file. (In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #1) > I will change the configuration file as you suggest. Thanks. > Unless anybody objects, I will do it only in rawhide so that users of stable > Fedora do not need to merge their own changes of the configuration file. I agree with this approach. Fixed in nano-2.4.2-2.fc24 via: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/nano.git/commit/?id=8a7d2e47 can we have this please for F22 or at least F23 too? (In reply to Harald Reindl from comment #4) > can we have this please for F22 or at least F23 too? Is not it easier to just change the config file? Even if we distributed an update of nano with changed config file, it would not take an immediate effect in case a user has any local changes to that config file. well, in that case it don't change anything, but i guess most users don't have a local configuration since i use nano for 8 years now on a dozens of machines and never touched the global config file nor one in the userhome i just updated yesterday my rawhide-vm to current rawhide and said "wow" after opening a shellscript Fair enough. I will submit the updates... nano-2.4.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-461bb4fd21 (In reply to Harald Reindl from comment #6) > i just updated yesterday my rawhide-vm to current rawhide and said "wow" > after opening a shellscript Yeah, similar here. Do not ask how I realized that the 'nano' editor is not a 'nano' at all. :) nano-2.4.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nano' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-461bb4fd21 nano-2.3.6-7.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nano' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0dcf1576d6 nano-2.4.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. nano-2.3.6-7.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |