On 07/11/2013 07:14 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
Hi Jiri,
Luckily (or not? - because it passed update test) this do not happen always.
And unluckily this was bugged after the f19 freeze -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979128
I think I will abandon whole update alternatives proces
Matthew Miller wrote:
> I always find
>
> $ rpm -qf `which java`
> file /usr/bin/java is not owned by any package
>
> to be very frustrating.
Ditto. I've been meaning to write a packaging draft to the alternatives
guidelines to enforce the idea that packages MUST own their 'alternatives'
t
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 02:14:20PM -0300, Fernando Lozano wrote:
> >I think I will abandon whole update alternatives process and come
> >with direct remove/add as this is not firs time when alternatives
> >behaved .. as they do. But until now it was always catch in time.
> Please don't drop altern
On 07/11/2013 10:14 AM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
But why is the bug marked as "CLOSED WORKSFORME"?
I've always considered that as a copout by somebody who isn't interested
in fixing what they consider an insignificant bug. More than once I've
had somebody ask for more, very specific informati
Hi Jiri,
Luckily (or not? - because it passed update test) this do not happen
always. And unluckily this was bugged after the f19 freeze -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979128
I think I will abandon whole update alternatives process and come with
direct remove/add as this is
