Control: found -1 1.21.0
Control: notfound -1 1.21.1
since the issue really occurred in dpkg 1.21.0.
On 2022-01-13 13:17:42 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
[...]
Thanks for the explanations.
> On Wed, 2022-01-12 at 14:17:17 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > 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?
>
> As long as alternatives.log has been kept for long enough,
I keep them for 1 year. :-) So, this was OK for me, except that
this does not say which packages could be affected, i.e. which
installed packages provide the considered alternative.
> otherwise grepping for u-a in maintscripts in the dpkg db might be
> more effective.
This is more complex than just a grep due to continuation lines.
For instance, /var/lib/dpkg/info/mlterm.postinst contains
update-alternatives \
--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
So, if I'm not mistaken:
pcregrep -Mr
'^(.|\\\n)*update-alternatives(.|\\\n)*--install(.|\\\n)*\bx-terminal-emulator\b(.|\n)*?[^\\]$'
/var/lib/dpkg/info
based on the idea from <https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/207584/74516>.
If there were a field in the control file, this could have been
much easier (and could also be useful in a more general way, e.g.
to search for non-installed packages providing some alternative).
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
