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

Re: man dangling symlink question

"Monique Y. Herman" <spam@bounceswoosh.org> [2003:10:09:12:03:32-0600] scribed:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 at 08:35 GMT, Colin Watson penned:
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 07:59:20PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
> >> It seems endemic that many package changes are ignorant of that dark
> >> corner of dpkg package that is /usr/sbin/update-alternatives -- why
> >> is that?
> > 
> > It doesn't help that update-alternatives has historically been buggy
> > and prone to randomly set links back to auto mode when you didn't want
> > it to. Furthermore, it's very unclear exactly when packages are
> > supposed to call update-alternatives in order to get upgrades right,
> > and there's still no policy on this (see bug #71621).
> I'd never heard of update-alternatives or /etc/alternatives until a few
> days ago on this list, and to be honest I'm still a little (a lot) foggy
> on what exactly it's used for.  For instance, I have
> /etc/alternatives/vi and /etc/alternatives/editor ... what applications
> will use these values?   To make it even more confusing, I see the
> following:
> monique@home:~$ ls -l /usr/bin/vi
> lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root           20 Jun 30  2002 /usr/bin/vi ->
> /etc/alternatives/vi*
> Obviously, this is an example of "something" using alternatives, but in
> this case, what was the "something"?  How do I find out which packages
> are using "alternatives"?
> Sorry for all the ignorant questions; the whole system sounds vaguely
> promising, but I can't quite get a grip on it yet.

   # dpkg -L dpkg | grep alternatives | sort

   # man update-alternatives

Best Regards,

mds resource
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know.  The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .

Attachment: pgpVaHwoX4koY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: