tag 445427 moreinfo unreproducible thanks On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 09:06:33PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote: > ACTIONS > > Following commands were run:
How did these packages get installed in the first place? In my testing, I started with a basic chroot, installed vim-tiny (to get to the normal state of a base install) and then vim. There were some issues with systems upgrading from Sarge to Etch but they wouldn't lead to the situation described below. > apt-get --purge remove vim vim-tiny vim-runtime > apt-get install vim > > RESULTS > > $ ls -la /usr/bin/vi > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Sep 5 2004 /usr/bin/vi -> /etc/alternatives/vi > > $ ls -la /etc/alternatives/vi > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Mar 28 2006 /etc/alternatives/vi -> > /usr/bin/vim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/# ls -l /etc/alternatives/vi lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Oct 5 18:57 /etc/alternatives/vi -> /usr/bin/vim.basic As expected. > $ ls -la /usr/bin/vim > ls: /usr/bin/vim: No such file or directory > > $ ls -la /etc/alternatives/vim > /etc/alternatives/vim -> /usr/bin/vim-basic I've never seen an alternative pointing to vim-basic. We've always used a '.' to separate the variant from the name 'vim'. Please post the output of "update-alternatives --display vi" and "update-alternatives --display vim". The very old dates and odd links make it look like the alternatives have been manually altered and aren't under control of the maintainer scripts anymore. James -- GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
