Hi Daniel, On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 00:39:00 +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 20:40 +0000 schrieb Ian Jackson: > > If there were a well-tested and sensible fix, with a clear explanation > > of what the bug was and how the patch corrects it, which hadn't been > > merged, then you might well wonder whether the maintainers were > > properly performing their most critical and un-delegateable role, > > which is to be gatekeeper. But that's not the case here. > > The problem is caused in config_alternatives() near line 680. There > simply the link in /etc/alternatives is created, but it is not checked, > if $slavelinks[$slnum] exists. Now there is some code at line 597 for > the "auto" action, that does, what we need in config_alternatives() too. > > The question: Should this code be put into a new function? If we need it > twice, it IMHO makes sense. A patch is attached using this idea.
Yes, that's good. Thanks for the patch, I've just skimmed over it and seems reasonable will check before commiting. > Please check it and tell me your opinion (e.g. if the coding style is > ok). I would simply adjust the patch, if you have concerns or > improvements. But then this bug can be closed. I think there's a problem with the indentation, but don't worry I'll fix before commit. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
