Your message dated Tue, 16 Jul 2019 11:33:49 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#926228: update-alternatives: spurious warnings with
--remove
has caused the Debian Bug report #926228,
regarding update-alternatives: spurious warnings with --remove
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
926228: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=926228
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: update-alternatives
Version: 1.18.23-1.19.0
In SUSE we use update-alternatives in our packages. When using
update-alternatives in %postun (e. g. what should happen after uninstalling the
package), the following warnings are emitted:
update-alternatives: warning: alternative /usr/bin/virtualenv-3.6 (part of link
group virtualenv) doesn't exist; removing from list of alternatives
update-alternatives: warning: /etc/alternatives/virtualenv is dangling; it will
be updated with best choice
update-alternatives: using /usr/bin/virtualenv-2.7 to provide
/usr/bin/virtualenv (virtualenv) in auto mode
This is because update-alternatives first checks if it must modify the
auto-selection, and discovers that key files are missing so it auto-corrects
the alternative choice.
...which is what I was telling it to do in the first place.
Unfortunately, using "--quiet" also silences the one non-warning, "using
<something> to provide <something> in auto mode" which seems like a thing we
should keep.
update-alternatives should not warn about broken files when instructed to
remove them.
This bug is platform-independent and probably also older versions of
update-alternatives are affected by this bug.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi!
On Mon, 2019-07-15 at 14:31:48 +0200, Marketa Calabkova wrote:
> On 03/07/2019 10:00, Marketa Calabkova wrote:
> > On 02/07/2019 15:22, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >> In any case ISTM that the real problem here is how u-a is being used in
> >> SUSE, which is not how u-a expects it to be operated. I'd say you'd need
> >> to switch to call it from %preun, which is what we are doing in Debian
> >> (removal is executed in prerm). This makes sure the alternative gets
> >> removed before the files disappear, so there's never a broken
> >> alternative (making the installation more robust), and u-a never sees
> >> that breakage as something that needs fixing, so no warnings will get
> >> emitted.
> > ...
> > Thank you for your answer. I will talk about it with my colleagues and
> > let you know.
> We decided to do nothing, as we use u-a the wrong way in too many
> packages and the bug is just a warning, so nothing serious. Thank you
> again, you can close this bug if you wish :) .
Ok, thanks, I'll close this then. I'd still very much recommend you
switch to the correct usage, because it would remove a warning that
might confuse packagers and users alike within your distribution, it
avoids potentially training them to ignore warnings, it makes the
upgrade more robust as the alternatives are not dangling for a period
of time during some package removals, and as you all are not too
bothered with this problem, making this a long transition would
(apparently) not be a problem by itself? :)
Thanks,
Guillem
--- End Message ---
