update-alternatives (Re: Release-critical Bugreport for November 5, 1999)
At Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:11:19 +0100,
Christian Kurz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 99-11-07 Rob Browning wrote:
> > Package: emacs20 (main)
> > Maintainer: Rob Browning <email@example.com>
> > 33237 /etc/alternatives/emacs not managed properly -
> > /usr/bin/emacs doesn't run emacs20
> > [STRATEGY] Maintainer promised to fix this.
> > I'd love some help with this one by anyone more knowledgable about the
> > alternatives system. I'm wondering if I might have the calls in the
> > wrong places (postinst vs preinst) or without the right guards
> > (configure vs purge vs upgrade). I've looked in to this some, but I
> > don't have time ATM to investigate it extremely carefully.
I think this bug can be fixed by update-alternatives --remove when
prerm upgrade, where emacs20.prerm exclude this, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, usage of update-alternatives seems to be vary from package to package.
Some packages don't check "configure" in postinst. Some packages
don't remove alternative when upgrade in prerm, but others do...
I've no idea which usage is the right way.
I checked packaging-manual and update-alternatives(8) but I couldn't
find the typical usage of update-alternatives in maintainer scripts...