Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Vincent Lefevre Newsgroups: linux.debian.bugs.dist,linux.debian.maint.dpkg Subject: Bug#1003452: dpkg: missing alternatives for x-terminal-emulator Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:30:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org Wed Jan 12 13:21:09 2022 Old-Return-Path: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.651 Reply-To: Vincent Lefevre , 1003452@bugs.debian.org Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-Cc: Dpkg Developers X-Debian-Pr-Message: followup 1003452 X-Debian-Pr-Package: dpkg X-Debian-Pr-Source: dpkg MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer-Info: https://www.vinc17.net/mutt/ User-Agent: Mutt/2.1.5+102 (2926cf8c) vl-138565 (2021-12-30) X-Debian-Message: from BTS X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1700189 List-ID: List-URL: Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 47 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: 1003452@bugs.debian.org X-Original-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:17:17 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: <20220112131717.GA7319@zira.vinc17.org> X-Original-References: <20220110121311.GA393661@cventin.lip.ens-lyon.fr> <20220110121311.GA393661@cventin.lip.ens-lyon.fr> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.bugs.dist:1089235 linux.debian.maint.dpkg:11403 Hi, On 2022-01-12 13:13:23 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Mon, 2022-01-10 at 13:13:11 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: [...] > > update-alternatives 2021-08-16 16:27:55: run with --install /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator x-terminal-emulator /usr/bin/mlterm 20 --slave /usr/share/man/man1/x-terminal-emulator.1.gz x-terminal-emulator.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/mlterm.1.gz > > update-alternatives 2021-08-22 01:56:43: run with --install /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator x-terminal-emulator /usr/bin/gnome-terminal.wrapper 40 --slave /usr/share/man/man1/x-terminal-emulator.1.gz x-terminal-emulator.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/gnome-terminal.1.gz > > update-alternatives 2021-09-13 09:49:58: run with --remove x-terminal-emulator /usr/bin/urxvtcd > > update-alternatives 2021-09-13 09:50:00: run with --install /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator x-terminal-emulator /usr/bin/urxvt 20 --slave /usr/share/man/man1/x-terminal-emulator.1.gz x-terminal-emulator.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/urxvt.1.gz > > update-alternatives 2021-09-27 14:08:32: run with --install /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator x-terminal-emulator /usr/bin/gnome-terminal.wrapper 40 --slave /usr/share/man/man1/x-terminal-emulator.1.gz x-terminal-emulator.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/gnome-terminal.1.gz > > update-alternatives 2021-11-23 13:29:02: run with --install /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator x-terminal-emulator /usr/bin/gnome-terminal.wrapper 40 --slave /usr/share/man/man1/x-terminal-emulator.1.gz x-terminal-emulator.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/gnome-terminal.1.gz > > update-alternatives 2021-12-06 13:49:47: run with --install /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator x-terminal-emulator /usr/bin/gnome-terminal.wrapper 40 --slave /usr/share/man/man1/x-terminal-emulator.1.gz x-terminal-emulator.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/gnome-terminal.1.gz > > update-alternatives 2021-12-06 13:49:47: link group x-terminal-emulator updated to point to /usr/bin/gnome-terminal.wrapper > > update-alternatives 2022-01-05 11:01:08: run with --remove x-terminal-emulator /usr/bin/urxvtcd > > update-alternatives 2022-01-05 11:04:12: run with --install /usr/bin/x-terminal-emulator x-terminal-emulator /usr/bin/urxvt 20 --slave /usr/share/man/man1/x-terminal-emulator.1.gz x-terminal-emulator.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/urxvt.1.gz > > > > I wonder whether some upgrade of gnome-terminal or rxvt trashed the alternatives. > > From this log, it looks like on 2021-12-06 you upgraded, and probably > got dpkg 1.20.0, which then lost the alternatives, and restored the > ones for gnome-terminal and rxvt, the other ones are then missing, > even after restoring the misplaced db. :/ Unfortunately w/o > declarative alternatives the current restoring logic is the best that > can be done, that will not leave cruft behind. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. dpkg 1.20.0 is very old. Perhaps you meant dpkg 1.21.0. Indeed, on this machine, dpkg 1.21.0 was installed on 2021-12-06 13:39:35. Then, do you mean that this was actually a bug in dpkg 1.21.0, which got fixed in 1.21.1, but alternatives settings had already been lost? If this is the case, is there a way to know which alternatives are missing? Those that appear in /var/log/alternatives.log* while dpkg 1.20.0 was installed? Indeed, there's also update-alternatives 2021-12-06 13:46:17: run with --install /bin/ksh ksh /bin/ksh93 20 --slave /usr/share/man/man1/ksh.1.gz ksh.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/ksh93.1.gz --slave /usr/share/binfmts/ksh ksh-binfmt /usr/share/ksh/ksh93.binfmt --slave /bin/rksh rksh /bin/rksh93 --slave /usr/share/man/man1/rksh.1.gz rksh.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/rksh93.1.gz update-alternatives 2021-12-06 13:46:17: link group ksh updated to point to /bin/ksh93 update-alternatives 2021-12-06 13:46:17: run with --install /usr/bin/shcomp shcomp /usr/bin/shcomp93 20 --slave /usr/share/man/man1/shcomp.1.gz shcomp.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/shcomp93.1.gz at this date, and I can also see missing alternatives for ksh. I can see that on another machine, dpkg was upgraded directly from 1.20.9 to 1.21.1, and I haven't noticed any issue there. -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)