Bug#71621: Policy on update-alternatives still needed
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.
It's still way better than having no editor.
> 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 ?
debhelper postinst snippets tend to check $1 for most operation, I don't
see a big problem in mandating their usage.
Another solution is to define the alternatives in some debhelper
configuration file (debian/package.alternatives) and let debhelper create
the right postrm/postint snippet.
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :