On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 11:02 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > forcemerge 311288 481555 > thanks > > On 2008-05-17 08:14 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > > > On 2008-05-17 02:42 +0200, Ross Boylan wrote: > > > >> update-alternatives showed emacs was set to manual. I reset it to > >> automatic, and emacs now points to emacs22. > > > > This clearly indicates that this is not a bug in the emacs22 packages; > > update-alternatives does not play nicely if you set an alternative to > > manual and then remove the preferred alternative. I don't know if I set it to manual; one possibility is that some installation machinery did so. It's possible I set it to manual.
I'm not sure if this is a bug in the latter case, although it seems reasonable that if a manual alternative is deleted there should be a fallback. > Note that, according > > to your dpkg log, the emacs21 package was removed before emacs22 was > > unpacked. > > A similar issue was reported as #311288, merging. Ross, do you have > other packages installed that provide the `/usr/bin/emacs' alternative? I don't think so, and update-alternatives --list doesn't report any other possibilities. Ross -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
