Bug#530633: xterm: Unable to configure package
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:21:17AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009, Bram Senders wrote:
> > There is also an x-terminal-emulator.1.gz file in
> > /var/lib/dpkg/alternatives, which is not a gzipped file at all, but just
> > contains the contents:
> >
> > --- 8< ---
> > manual
> >
> >
> >
> > --- >8 ---
> >
> > (including the three empty lines) Is this intended?
>
> The existence of this file is the real problem. update-alternatives only
> create such a file for a master alternative and this one should not exist
> at all.
>
> What is the timestamp of this file ?
>
> stat /var/lib/dpkg/alternatives/x-terminal-emulator.1.gz
File: `/var/lib/dpkg/alternatives/x-terminal-emulator.1.gz'
Size: 10 Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 regular file
Device: 304h/772d Inode: 353989 Links: 1
Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 0/ root)
Access: 2009-05-28 11:23:07.000000000 +0200
Modify: 2005-02-25 13:11:37.000000000 +0100
Change: 2008-04-03 00:02:28.000000000 +0200
> Can you check if that time correspond to the upgrade of some terminal
> related package in /var/log/dpkg.log (or aptitude.log if you use it).
Unfortunately, my logs don't go back to april last year. ;-)
> I don't know who/what called update-alternatives with
> x-terminal-emulator.1.gz as master alternative but it's definitely not
> a side-effect of proper usage of update-alternatives.
Alas I don't know either; this box is maintained by multiple people, so
anything might have happened to the terminal alternatives.
[snip]
> Or maybe simply "rm -f
> /var/lib/dpkg/alternatives/x-terminal-emulator.1.gz" as it avoids the
> temporary removal of /etc/alternatives/x-terminal-emulator.1.gz (and the
> message "forcing reinstallation of alternative /usr/bin/uxterm because
> link group x-terminal-emulator is broken" later on...).
That solved the problem for me. Well, not the problem of who broke the
alternatives, but at least xterm is properly installed now again. :-)
Thanks for the detailed help!
Cheers,
Bram
Reply to: