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

Bug#440092: broken native2ascii alternative



please check if the alternatives are in manual mode, and if yes,
update them. or run update-java-alternatives to update all java
related alternatives. not sure if this is a bug at all, and if, how to
handle the upgrade.

Joey Hess writes:
> Package: gcj-4.1
> Version: 4.1.2-14
> Severity: normal
> 
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 38 Jul 30 13:45 /etc/alternatives/native2ascii -> /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/bin/native2ascii
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 48 Jul 30 13:45 /etc/alternatives/native2ascii.1.gz -> /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/man/man1/native2ascii.1.gz
> 
> Both these symlinks are broken. The alternative seems to be created by this
> package's postinst. Of course there are annoying cron warnings mailed about
> the broken man page symlink.
> 
> I have java-gcj-compat version 1.0.76-5 installed, and it provides
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.2-1.5.0.0/bin, which
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/bin/ is a symlink to, but there is no native2ascii
> stuff in that directory:
> 
> joey@kodama:/var/lib/dpkg/info>dir /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/bin/
> total 8.0K
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4.0K Aug 26 21:40 ./
> drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4.0K Aug 26 21:40 ../
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   30 Aug 26 21:40 gcj-dbtool -> ../../../../bin/gcj-dbtool-4.2*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Aug 26 21:40 gij -> ../../../../bin/gij-4.2*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Aug 26 21:40 jar -> ../../../../bin/fastjar*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   23 Aug 26 21:40 java -> ../../../../bin/gij-4.2*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   28 Aug 26 21:40 keytool -> ../../../../bin/gkeytool-4.2*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   25 Aug 26 21:40 orbd -> ../../../../bin/gorbd-4.2*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   25 Aug 26 21:40 rmid -> ../../../../bin/grmid-4.2*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   32 Aug 26 21:40 rmiregistry -> ../../../../bin/grmiregistry-4.2*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   30 Aug 26 21:40 serialver -> ../../../../bin/gserialver-4.2*
> 
> (Good lord, that's a lot of levels of symlinks!)

it's policy to use relative symlinks ;-p




Reply to: