Hi, On Wed, Sep 14, 2005, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > The postinst sets up a gnome-text-editor alternative, pointing it > to /usr/bin/gedit. Unfortunately, that file is not part of the > gedit-common package, so if the package is installed without gedit, > removal of the alternative fails, leaving cruft on the system. I guess > it would be better to move the alternatives handling into the gedit > package? > (I realize that this is a fairly unlikely scenario, but that's what > piuparts testing results in.)
Thanks, this has started an interesting investigation on package dependencies because you filed two (very different) piuparts bugs against galeon/galeon-common and gedit/gedit-common the same day. The story is that gedit depends on gedit-common, and -- in the past -- gedit-common used to depend on gedit. The same is true of galeon/galeon-common. The dependencies were in a case removed (gedit-common does not depend on gedit) and in another one lowered (galeon-common recommends galeon) because of the circular deps issues during upgrades. The interesting questions that come out of this is: - would piuparts have detected this error if gedit-common recommended gedit? - is it ok not to comply with policy when this never happens in concrete usecases? (here, the use is never going to install gedit-common without gedit) On my side, I'm looking at being policy compliant again, but it's not going to be funny (especially because of downgrades :-/). Bye, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>