On 2011-11-07 15:39, Florian Weimer wrote: > Why is update-java-alternatives not used in the postinst script of Java > implementations? I guess it's because there is no way to invoke in such > that it makes the required adjustments, and only those. Would it make > sense to enhance update-java-alternatives to install new alternatives, > without switching between manual and automatic mode? >
Hi, Presumably because it does not have the same level of sophistication as update-alternatives. As I see it, it is an "admin"/"end-user" tool to simplify choosing a java alternative and (looking at the code) I doubt it satisfies policy requirements for a postinst code (as you mentioned). Not to mention that java-common is not essential (and it shouldn't be), so it cannot be relied on in (i.e.) preinst. Thus a maintainer have to use update-alternatives directly anyway in some cases (look at the migration code in openjdk-6-jre-headless.preinst for instance). But what would you hope to achieve by making update-java-alternatives usable in postinst? What does it do that the current maintainer scripts cannot (or are not) do(ing) with update-alternatives? ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4eb86034.90...@thykier.net
