Bug#424879: marked as done (developers-reference: Document best practise for update-alternatives)

Your message dated Sat, 10 Sep 2022 13:31:51 +0100 with message-id and subject line Closing requests for updates included in 11.5 has caused the Debian Bug report #101870, regarding developers-reference: Document best practise for update-alternatives to be marked as done. This means that you

Bug#71621: marked as done (Standardize when update-alternatives --remove may be called)

Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700 with message-id <87o9rlx51o@iris.silentflame.com> and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs has caused the Debian Bug report #71621, regarding Standardize when update-alternatives --remove may be called to be marked as done. This

Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

Guillem Jover writes: > A deconfigure happens for three reasons, Configure + Depends (other > package removal), Breaks and M-A:same instances syncing. > That's the only problematic and tricky maintainer script case I see, > because due to the way dpkg and apt (or other frontends) interact, > dec

Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

On Sun, 2012-09-23 at 10:03:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > In prerm: > > if [ "$1" = "remove" ] || [ "$1" = "deconfigure" ] ; then > update-alternatives --remove tf /usr/bin/tf5 > fi > > is correct I think. The possible invoca

Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

Jakub Wilk writes: > I don't think we should be filing bugs before there's consensus _how_ > exactly to fix them. In prerm: if [ "$1" = "remove" ] || [ "$1" = "deconfigure" ] ; then update-alternatives --remove tf /usr/bin/tf5 fi is

Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

* Bill Allombert , 2012-09-20, 18:50: I've just tested 665 packages that use update-alternatives. 122 of them removed an alternative on upgrade. Could you report bugs ? I don't think we should be filing bugs before there's consensus _how_ exactly to fix them. But I&

Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 05:00:27PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Colin Watson , 2008-03-12, 10:00: > >I recently ran into this yet again, with a set of packages (scim > >et al) calling update-alternatives --remove in 'prerm upgrade', > >and thereby breaking user confi

Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

* Colin Watson , 2008-03-12, 10:00: I recently ran into this yet again, with a set of packages (scim et al) calling update-alternatives --remove in 'prerm upgrade', and thereby breaking user configuration on every upgrade. I do not think that the issue has got significantly better

Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Ian Jackson wrote: > Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still > needed"): > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 05:25:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > * retain the manual configuration but simply not use it w

Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed"): > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 05:25:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > * retain the manual configuration but simply not use it when > >then user's manual selection is unavailable. &

Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 05:25:56PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Colin Watson writes ("Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed"): > > Based on the analysis I did back in 2000, which I think is still largely > > sound, I think that policy should recommend

Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

Colin Watson writes ("Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed"): > Based on the analysis I did back in 2000, which I think is still largely > sound, I think that policy should recommend that 'update-alternatives > --remove' must not be called in any of

Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

reopen 71621 thanks I recently ran into this yet again, with a set of packages (scim et al) calling update-alternatives --remove in 'prerm upgrade', and thereby breaking user configuration on every upgrade. I do not think that the issue has got significantly better in the 7.5 yea

Processed: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reopen 71621 Bug#71621: No policy on calling update-alternatives (was Re: update-alternatives) 'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version; you may need to use 'found' to remove fixed versions. Bug#11

Re: Bug#363486: dpkg: [update-alternatives] New categories for: WORD, EXCEL, MEDIA-PLAYER etc.

| an off-topic question: | | why x-office-word, x-office-excel, etc? | are these trying to express "the replacement for microsoft windows | word, excel" ? | or is this what text documents or spreadsheet documents being called? It's almost industry standard to refer to "Word" as the word processor

Re: Bug#363486: dpkg: [update-alternatives] New categories for: WORD, EXCEL, MEDIA-PLAYER etc.

an off-topic question: why x-office-word, x-office-excel, etc? are these trying to express "the replacement for microsoft windows word, excel" ? or is this what text documents or spreadsheet documents being called? -- Fred On 6/12/06, Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/12/06,

Re: Bug#363486: dpkg: [update-alternatives] New categories for: WORD, EXCEL, MEDIA-PLAYER etc.

On 6/12/06, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there any coordinated effort to standardize the name of the provided programs in /etc/alternatives? I don't think this concerns debian-policy at all. The use of alternatives is something that needs to be coordinated amont the maintainers of

Re: Bug#363486: dpkg: [update-alternatives] New categories for: WORD, EXCEL, MEDIA-PLAYER etc.

| Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: | reassign 363486 debian-policy | | each package should agree on which interface is needed to be able to | provide a specific alternative. And if they should provide a virtual | package for it. | | On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 14:44:08 +0300, Jari Aalto wrote: | > Pa

Processed: Re: Bug#363486: dpkg: [update-alternatives] New categories for: WORD, EXCEL, MEDIA-PLAYER etc.

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 363486 debian-policy Bug#363486: dpkg: [update-alternatives] New categories for: WORD, EXCEL, MEDIA-PLAYER etc. Bug reassigned from package `dpkg' to `debian-policy'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contac

Bug#71621: marked as done (No policy on calling update-alternatives (was Re: update-alternatives))

[EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org Subject: No policy on calling update-alternatives (was Re: update-alternatives) In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: riva.ucam.org Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 14

Bug#112828: marked as done (Example for using update-alternatives in package maintainer scripts)

t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 20:06:16 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Example for using update-alternatives in package maintainer scripts From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Hornburg (Racke)) Date: 19 Sep 2001 20:06:16 +0200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lines: 16 MIME-Version: 1

Bug#112828: Example for using update-alternatives in package maintainer scripts

reassign 71621 debian-policy severity 71621 wishlist merge 71621 112828 thanks On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:06:16PM +0200, Stefan Hornburg Racke wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > > Please include an example how to use update-alternatives in the Debian > polic

Bug#112828: Example for using update-alternatives in package maintainer scripts

On 19-Sep-01, 13:06 (CDT), "Stefan Hornburg (Racke)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please include an example how to use update-alternatives in the Debian > policy. Even reading the manpage left me without a clue how to fix > #112620, because I don't know how updat

Bug#112828: Example for using update-alternatives in package maintainer scripts

Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Please include an example how to use update-alternatives in the Debian policy. Even reading the manpage left me without a clue how to fix #112620, because I don't know how update-alternatives is called the right way. Ciao Racke -- Racke ha

Bug#71621: No policy on calling update-alternatives (was Re: update-alternatives)

> "Colin" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Colin> On my system, there are no less than eight distinct ways Colin> used by packages to remove alternatives (excluding Colin> special-case conditions like that used by ae, and folding Colin> down the various ways used to

Bug#71621: No policy on calling update-alternatives (was Re: update-alternatives)

Package: packaging-manual Version: 3.2.1.0 peter karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >How do I get update-alternatives to keep information when upgrading a >package? > >Currently I have postinst add it and prerm remove it, but if I set the >alternative to point to something

Processed: dpkg: update-alternatives madness

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 37254 dpkg Bug#37254: dpkg: update-alternatives madness Bug reassigned from package `packaging-manual' to `dpkg'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Darren Benham (administra

Bug#37254: dpkg: update-alternatives madness

reassign 37254 dpkg thanks Hi, Since the packaging manual already contains the correct text, I am sending this back to dpkg, as decided. manoj -- Being schizophrenic is better than living alone. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1024R

Re: update-alternatives.

On 26-Feb-00, 19:51 (CST), Jordi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 05:14:09PM -0800, Seth R Arnold wrote: > > Jordi, I imagine if you set the priority the same as joe's, and nothing > > breaks, then go with it. :) I imagine the maintainer of joe did the > > right thing. Hehe. :)

Re: update-alternatives.

gt; > Nano needs to provide an alternative for editor, and browsing the postinst > > files of other editors, I saw this on joe: > > update-alternatives --install /usr/bin/editor editor /usr/bin/joe 70 \ > > --slave /usr/man/man1/editor.1.gz editor.1.gz /usr/man/man1/joe.1.gz &

Bug#37254: dpkg: update-alternatives madness

> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote: > > Do we need to then specify this in the policy manual, or will it be > > sufficient to file bugs against packages which don't have the needed > > update-alternatives in their prerm? > > No need to put this in the policy

Bug#37254: dpkg: update-alternatives madness

Previously Julian Gilbey wrote: > Do we need to then specify this in the policy manual, or will it be > sufficient to file bugs against packages which don't have the needed > update-alternatives in their prerm? No need to put this in the policy manual. The policy manual is for pol

Bug#37254: dpkg: update-alternatives madness

> I agree that update-alternatives shouldn't put an alternative into > manual mode because a _target_ disappeared unexpectedly. I'll look > into this eventually. > > But, the problem doesn't happen if you call update-alternatives in the > prerm, which is where yo

Processed: dpkg: update-alternatives madness

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 37254 debian-policy, dpkg Bug#37254: dpkg: update-alternatives madness Bug reassigned from package `dpkg' to `debian-policy, dpkg'. > severity 37254 normal Bug#37254: dpkg: update-alternatives madness Severity set to `

dpkg: update-alternatives madness

reassign 37254 debian-policy, dpkg severity 37254 normal quit I agree that update-alternatives shouldn't put an alternative into manual mode because a _target_ disappeared unexpectedly. I'll look into this eventually. But, the problem doesn't happen if you call update-alternativ