On Di, 13 Nov 2007, Jan-Åke Larsson wrote:
> I am the original reporter. For me sane would be that the symlink is
> _present_, pointing to _any_ xdvi present on the system. I do not have a
> preference just now.
And HOW can we check this? readlink is nice, but what about a link
pointing to a NFS share that is not already mounted? Or to a not present
file in /usr/local/bin since afterwards some device is mounted over
/usr/local? Or a dangling symlink to /usr/local/bin because files are
stowed/grafted into /usr/local later on.
There is NO way to decide on "sane"/"non-broken" in every case. We can
ONLY care for dangling symlinks which WE have installed, not for
anything else.
> My system is a simple standalone laptop. As are the majority of
> installs, I presume. I would expect the install scripts to be able to
> handle this situation.
It could be that the code already handles this, but the postinst script
was stopped prior to executing the update-alternatives code due to an
error in fmtutil-sys.
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAVERNAKE (vb.)
To sew municipal crests on to a windcheater in the belief that this
will make the wearer appear cosmopolitan.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
[gutsy] xdvi.bin symlink not installed
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/156628
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
