Re: Solved: update-alternatives -- changing preferences
kmself@ix.netcom.com said:
> <rant>
> That's the option which the manpage, in its verbosity, fails to make
> clear. Ok, there is a paragraph buried at the end of the "DESCRIPTION"
> section, but it's a bit buried.
>
> Examples here would be very useful.
> </rant>
I get the distinct impression that, because --config ignores the priority
ratings, it's considered to be an 'inferior' way of handling things. I
suspect that this bias against it is the reason that it is glossed over
in the documentation. I also suspect that, since it's the only way to be
sure that your preferences will never be changed by the installation of
a new package, it's the way that most people would prefer to have their
systems operate.
I agree about the examples, though. The --install option, in particular,
could stand to both be better documented (even just adding a sentence to the
effect that "--install is also used to change the details of existing
options, not only to add new ones.") and have an example or two presented
(typical usage appears to require passing two consecutive parameters with the
same value, which seems like the wrong thing to do - might this be a design
flaw?).
I also suspect that --display claiming "status is auto" after --config has
been used to force a certain option (a decidedly _non_-automatic mode of
operation) should be considered a bug.
--
"Two words: Windows survives." - Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior strategist
"So does syphillis. Good thing we have penicillin." - Matthew Alton
Geek Code 3.1: GCS d- s+: a- C++ UL++$ P+>+++ L+++>++++ E- W--(++) N+ o+
!K w---$ O M- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5++ X+ R++ tv b+ DI++++ D G e* h+ r++ y+
Reply to: