http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031133 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031133#c5 --- Comment #5 from Marketa Calabkova <mcalabkova@suse.com> --- I got an answer: I checked this yesterday, and silencing the first warning would be trivial, the second one might need more code shuffling. But I'm actually wondering now whether that would be the correct thing to do at all. The problem I can see, is that this is really dealing with a broken alternative and symlinks, so I think the user should be notified, but will ponder about it a bit more. In any case ISTM that the real problem here is how u-a is being used in SUSE, which is not how u-a expects it to be operated. I'd say you'd need to switch to call it from %preun, which is what we are doing in Debian (removal is executed in prerm). This makes sure the alternative gets removed before the files disappear, so there's never a broken alternative (making the installation more robust), and u-a never sees that breakage as something that needs fixing, so no warnings will get emitted. The above is documented in the man page, I guess I could improve it to cover the rpm case. Thanks, Guillem So Debian tells us we are using update alternatives the wrong way :) . -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.