[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: alternatives DB corruption

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Michael Neuffer wrote:
> > The database file is corrupted. What did you do to corrupt it? Is there a
> > reliable way to corrupt it?
> Yes, by editing it by hand. :-)

So there's no bug in update-alternatives at least.

> I had to do it a few weeks earlier to remove
> some alternatives that were corrupted by a broken package.
> (Things that constantly using unstable can do to you...)

Hum, that should not happen. You should always be able to
update-alternatives to fix stuff.

> I had to edit and fix alternatives manually every now and then over the
> past 15 years or so and never had (major) problems with that. Maybe I was
> just lucky so far.

You won't have to do this in the future, update-alternatives no longer
allows installation of broken alternatives and fixes stuff itself for most

> > It lacks lots of empty lines at the end. Each alternative should have a
> > set of line like this:
> > <masterfile>
> > <priority>
> > <slave-file-1>
> > <slave-file-2>
> > ...
> > <slave-file-13>
> >
> > Yet your last alternative only has 4 lines:
> > ----
> > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/mesa/ld.so.conf
> > 500
> >
> > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/xorg/x11-extra-modules
> > ----
> Yes I removed them. I wasn't aware that they were significant.


> The file format unfortunately isn't documented in the man page.

Because it's not meant to be edited with anything else than

> Is there a way to find out how many empty lines are missing where?

I documented the format above... in your specific case you need 15 lines
in total (master + priority + 13 slaves). You already have 4 lines so you
need 11 empty lines after.

Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
                      ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)

Reply to: