Debian freesmartphone.org Team <pkg-fso-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org>
vala-terminal
Debian Games Team <pkg-games-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
freeciv-client-gtk
freeciv-client-sdl
freeciv-client-xaw3d
gargoyle-free
love
nethack-console
nethack-x11
yabause-gtk
yabause-qt
Yao Wei (*銘廷) <mwei@lxde.org>
gcin (U)
hime (U)
lxterminal (U)
Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) <paulliu@debian.org>
jlha-utils
unrar-free
YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com>
fcitx (U)
Zhengpeng Hou <zhengpeng-hou@ubuntu.com>
ibus (U)
09-23-2012, 11:56 AM
Josselin Mouette
Packages removing alternatives on upgrade
Le dimanche 23 septembre 2012 * 13:49 +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
> Many packages remove alternatives on upgrade, only to re-add them later,
> potentially discarding manual choices of the user.
Thanks for the report.
> Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>
> gedit (U)
I’ve fixed it in the SVN.
--
.'`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1348401369.2606.0.camel@tomoyo
09-23-2012, 03:40 PM
Ivan Shmakov
Packages removing alternatives on upgrade
>>>>> Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> writes:
[Cross-posting to packages@qa, for elvis is maintained by the QA
group.]
> Many packages remove alternatives on upgrade, only to re-add them
> later, potentially discarding manual choices of the user.
> See also bug #71621.
[…]
> Debian QA Group <packages@qa.debian.org>
> elvis
> elvis-console
> elvis-tools
> ircii
[…]
BTW, do I understand it correctly that it's just a matter of
dropping the ‘upgrade’ case from .prerm? (Possible patch
MIME'd.)
TIA.
--
FSF associate member #7257
10-06-2012, 06:06 PM
tony mancill
Packages removing alternatives on upgrade
On 09/23/2012 08:40 AM, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>>> Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> writes:
>
> [Cross-posting to packages@qa, for elvis is maintained by the QA
> group.]
>
> > Many packages remove alternatives on upgrade, only to re-add them
> > later, potentially discarding manual choices of the user.
>
> > See also bug #71621.
>
> […]
>
> > Debian QA Group <packages@qa.debian.org>
> > elvis
> > elvis-console
> > elvis-tools
> > ircii
>
> […]
>
> BTW, do I understand it correctly that it's just a matter of
> dropping the ‘upgrade’ case from .prerm? (Possible patch
> MIME'd.)
>
> TIA.
>
>
>
>
> --- debian/elvis-console.prerm.~1~ 2012-09-23 13:34:49.000000000 +0000
> +++ debian/elvis-console.prerm 2012-09-23 15:24:02.000000000 +0000
> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> set -e
>
> case "$1" in
> - upgrade|remove|deconfigure)
> + remove|deconfigure)
> for app in editor ex input vi view; do
> update-alternatives --quiet --remove "$app" /usr/bin/elvis
> done
> --- debian/elvis.prerm.~1~ 2012-09-23 13:34:49.000000000 +0000
> +++ debian/elvis.prerm 2012-09-23 15:24:02.000000000 +0000
> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> set -e
>
> case "$1" in
> - upgrade|remove|deconfigure)
> + remove|deconfigure)
> for app in editor ex input vi view; do
> update-alternatives --quiet --remove "$app" /usr/bin/elvisnox
> done
> --- debian/elvis-tools.prerm.~1~ 2012-09-23 13:34:49.000000000 +0000
> +++ debian/elvis-tools.prerm 2012-09-23 15:24:02.000000000 +0000
> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> set -e
>
> case "$1" in
> - upgrade|remove|deconfigure)
> + remove|deconfigure)
> update-alternatives --quiet --remove ctags /usr/bin/elvtags
> ;;
> failed-upgrade)
Can someone confirm that Ivan's proposed patch is the correct way to
deal with this problem? I have the same issue in some of my packages.
Thank you,
tony
10-06-2012, 08:15 PM
Russ Allbery
Packages removing alternatives on upgrade
tony mancill <tmancill@debian.org> writes:
> On 09/23/2012 08:40 AM, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>> BTW, do I understand it correctly that it's just a matter of
>> dropping the ‘upgrade’ case from .prerm? (Possible patch
>> MIME'd.)
near the bottom for more discussion. (Note that while common, I've never
been fond of that case statement construction, since it means that we
can't introduce new maintainer script actions without modifying lots of
maintainer scripts that may not need to be modified otherwise.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 877gr3s6gh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/877gr3s6gh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
10-08-2012, 04:29 AM
Ivan Shmakov
Packages removing alternatives on upgrade
>>>>> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
[…]
> It's an improvement. Guillem makes a good argument that you should
> drop deconfigure as well, which means that:
> if [ "$1" = "remove" ] ; then
> update-alternatives --remove <foo> <path-to-foo>
> fi
> is probably the best thing to use right now.
[…]
> (Note that while common, I've never been fond of that case statement
> construction, since it means that we can't introduce new maintainer
> script actions without modifying lots of maintainer scripts that may
> not need to be modified otherwise.)
? How is the ‘if’ statement above different to, say:
case "$1" in
(remove)
update-alternatives --remove <foo> <path-to-foo>
;;
esac
--
FSF associate member #7257
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 86wqz1k2nb.fsf@gray.siamics.net">http://lists.debian.org/86wqz1k2nb.fsf@gray.siamics.net
10-08-2012, 04:41 AM
Russ Allbery
Packages removing alternatives on upgrade
Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes:
> ? How is the ‘if’ statement above different to, say:
> case "$1" in
> (remove)
> update-alternatives --remove <foo> <path-to-foo>
> ;;
> esac
It's not; what it *is* different from is the more common case
construction, which instead looks like:
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 877gr1a84e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/877gr1a84e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu