Re: sawfish makes itself x-window-manager
Craig Dickson wrote:
>
> Erik Steffl wrote:
>
> > looks like a bug in update-alternatives (dpkg), right? Is there any
> > way to verify what happened? I mean is there any history of changes or
> > something that I can check AFTER the fact (obviously, I cannot check
> > before since I don't know it's goingto happen, and even if I knew
> > there's nothing really to check).
> >
> > did anybody else noticed the same problem?
>
> Yes. Every time the X packages are updated in Sid, x-window-manager gets
> set to fluxbox (which is installed, but not what I want the default to
> be), and x-terminal-emulator gets set to gnome-terminal (also not what I
> want by default). I run "update-alternatives --config" to change them to
> the defaults I want, and the next time X is updated, the same thing
> happens again. It's kind of annoying.
in case of most programs it's kind of annoying, but in case of
x-window-manager it can cause data loss - that makes it IMO a fairly
serious bug (though not very likely to be triggered, I guess most people
(including me) almost never restart WM).
> Bug #164214, in its second message, describes this problem, and in its
> third message, has a proposed patch for update-alternatives that is
> claimed to be a fix for it. Whether it is a valid fix or not, I do not
> know, though it looks reasonable at first glance. Since this proposed
> patch is nearly two months old already, it's probably not safe to assume
> that a fixed package is imminent. The dpkg team seems to have a lot
> going on currently, to judge from a few messages I've seen on
> debian-devel over the last few months.
it's not exactly the same, it mostly deals with --remove not switching
back to auto mode and the patch only fixes this particular problem
(switching back to auto). as far as I can tell that would have no effect
on problem of update-alternatives behaving as if it was in auto mode
when it is actually in manual mode.
anyway, I guess I'll just be careful restarting WM and hope it'll get
fixed eventually... considering the number of old bugs (few years old)
it doesn't seem to make any sense to file bugs... are they
re-impplementing most/all of dpkg?
erik
Reply to: