Hide Forgot
Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
(Looks that I managed to submit an empty report. Apparently I hit some button I did not intend to. Apologies.) jwhois updates produce quite consistently, across multiple distributions, the following complaint: failed to link /usr/share/man/man1/whois.1.gz -> /etc/alternatives/whois-man: /usr/share/man/man1/whois.1.gz exists and it is not a symlink This is caused by the following fragment of a postinstall scriptlet: /usr/sbin/update-alternatives \ --install /usr/bin/whois \ whois /usr/bin/jwhois 60 \ --slave /usr/share/man/man1/whois.1.gz \ whois-man /usr/share/man/man1/whois.jwhois.1.gz if there was previously updated a version of a jwhois package where /usr/share/man/man1/whois.1.gz was actually a file. It appears that the simplest fix would be to add to the above as the first line: rm -f /usr/share/man/man1/whois.1.gz Even if this would happen to remove a wanted symlink that would be immediately restored by a run of 'update-alternatives'. jwhois-4.0-44.fc24 and other versions too.
Hello Michal, I'm not able to reproduce the issue. I see no problem with ordinary jwhois installations/updates. > if there was previously updated a version of a jwhois package where /usr/share > /man/man1/whois.1.gz was actually a file. How's that possible? How it can be actually a file? (We have "whois" alternative in Fedora, but moving between jwhois/whois also works as expected.) I mean - I can "create" it like: # touch /usr/share/man/man1/whois.1.gz # dnf install jwhois ... failed to link /usr/share/man/man1/whois.1.gz -> /etc/alternatives/whois-man: /usr/share/man/man1/whois.1.gz exists and it is not a symlink ... But that's not packaging issue and won't fix that. And by the chance... if you carry /usr/share/man/man1/whois.1.gz from pre-alternative era (November 2010, F14-15), please reinstall the package and remove the file manually:)
(In reply to Vitezslav Crhonek from comment #2) > > > if there was previously updated a version of a jwhois package where /usr/share > > /man/man1/whois.1.gz was actually a file. > > How's that possible? How it can be actually a file? Clearly some earlier version of packages in question created that. I did not try to track a history but if I am seeing the same issue across multiple installation with a file /usr/share/man/man1/whois.1.gz which contains ".so man1/jwhois.1" that can be hardly called an accident. BTW - at least for CentOS6, which is using jwhois-4.0-19.el6, you can see in 'rpm -qvl jwhois': -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 38 Sep 23 2011 /usr/share/man/man1/whois.1.gz Somehow I doubt that older versions of Fedora packages were that different. > But that's not packaging issue and won't fix that. Shrug! It is clearly a packaging issue for updates from older versions and I suggested a trivial way of making that transition smoother at no real cost. But if you do not want to bother this is not the end of the world. Yeah, I modified that on my installations quite a while ago, and there is no problem there, but these complaint still resurface.
(In reply to Michal Jaegermann from comment #3) > > BTW - at least for CentOS6, which is using jwhois-4.0-19.el6, you can see in > 'rpm -qvl jwhois': > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 38 Sep 23 2011 > /usr/share/man/man1/whois.1.gz > > Somehow I doubt that older versions of Fedora packages were that different. Well, but that's really old package, the transformation to alternatives (symlink) happened in jwhois-4.0-23, more than five years ago. > > > But that's not packaging issue and won't fix that. > > Shrug! It is clearly a packaging issue for updates from older versions and > I suggested a trivial way of making that transition smoother at no real > cost. But if you do not want to bother this is not the end of the world. > Yeah, I modified that on my installations quite a while ago, and there is no > problem there, but these complaint still resurface. OK, fair enough. I applied the fix you propose in Rawhide. Anyway, thanks for the bug report.