On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 05:58:24PM -0500, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 11:45:13PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > I remember having issues with vim/gvim symlink maintenence in the past,
> > and I never had time to watch out for bugs in update-alternatives. This
> > time I will do it.
>
> Sorry for not having time/willingness to look at it right now, but my
> feeling is indeed that there are oddities on the update-alternatives
> side. During the testing of the vim package I ended up several time with
> apparently unpredictable behaviours of update-alternatives, which are
> always symptomps of bugs.
>
> We will all be very grateful if you can look into this.
As I noted in the email to Eduard, I think I've solved the problems with
our usage of update-alternatives. Now there's the question of how/if we
can properly clean up after ourselves when upgrading from a version that
had the update-alternatives problems.
One possible (untested) solution is to check whether the alternative is
in manual mode and "update-alternatives --list" doesn't show any
entries. If that's the case, remove the alternative before we add the
new ones. I'm not sure if that's a safe assumption that we can make,
though.
Ideas?
James
--
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
|
