Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed"):
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 05:25:56PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >  * retain the manual configuration but simply not use it when
> >    then user's manual selection is unavailable.
> 
> That sounds more promising to me.

If we do this and retain the existing maintainer scripts then
everything will be fine *except* that while (say) nvi is unpacked but
not configured, the system will mysteriously use vim (say) instead.

Perhaps more thought is actually needed.  I really don't like the idea
of asking maintainers to switch on $1.  That always goes wrong.  But
we could ask them to pass their $1 to u-a ?

Also, if the package is unpacked because it was just upgraded, and you
then say --remove, the prerm isn't run.  So just checking $1 in the
prerm isn't sufficient.  It has to be done in the postrm (as well, if
not only).

That means that while the package is being removed, it will inevitably
sometimes leave a broken alternative.

Ian.