Opened 13 years ago
Closed 13 years ago
#7441 closed defect (fixed)
Bad symlink in josm package
Reported by: | Ilis | Owned by: | team |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | unspecified | Version: | tested |
Keywords: | Cc: | dpaleino |
Description
ilis@alivio:~$ file /usr/share/pixmaps/josm.png /usr/share/pixmaps/josm.png: broken symbolic link to `../../images/logo.png'
Attachments (0)
Change History (12)
comment:1 by , 13 years ago
Resolution: | → invalid |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
follow-up: 3 comment:2 by , 13 years ago
Resolution: | invalid |
---|---|
Status: | closed → reopened |
confirmed (this is from our repo)
comment:3 by , 13 years ago
follow-ups: 5 10 comment:4 by , 13 years ago
The bug is also in the debian package. @Ilis: If you have a minute, please file a bug report at the debian bug tracker.
As far as I can see, the file /usr/share/pixmaps/josm.png
isn't used anywhere, so I'd just remove it from our repository.
follow-up: 8 comment:5 by , 13 years ago
Replying to bastiK:
The bug is also in the debian package. @Ilis: If you have a minute, please file a bug report at the debian bug tracker.
As far as I can see, the file
/usr/share/pixmaps/josm.png
isn't used anywhere, so I'd just remove it from our repository.
I would like to use this file as icon in Unity Louncher :) I had extract logo from jar (about.png), but prefer any png icon in /usr/share from package.
I dont know how to report on Debian. (Ubuntu user)
comment:8 by , 13 years ago
Replying to anonymous:
I dont know how to report on Debian. (Ubuntu user)
not tried yet:
$ sudo apt-get install reportbug $ reportbug josm
comment:9 by , 13 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
follow-up: 11 comment:10 by , 13 years ago
Replying to bastiK:
The bug is also in the debian package.
Not true.
$ ls -lah /usr/share/pixmaps/josm.png -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 33K feb 2 11:42 /usr/share/pixmaps/josm.png $
(so, josm.png is a real file, not a symlink)
comment:11 by , 13 years ago
Replying to dpaleino:
Replying to bastiK:
The bug is also in the debian package.
Not true.
I stand corrected, this seems to be a problem of the Ubuntu modifications:
$ dpkg -c josm_0.0.svn3751-2ubuntu1_all.deb drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./ drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/ drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/bin/ -rwxr-xr-x root/root 1126 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/bin/josm drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/ drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/josm/ -rw-r--r-- root/root 5743728 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/josm/josm-0.0.svn3751.jar drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/pixmaps/ -rw-r--r-- root/root 3850 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/pixmaps/josm-16.xpm -rw-r--r-- root/root 6378 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/pixmaps/josm-32.xpm drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/applications/ -rw-r--r-- root/root 220 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/applications/josm.desktop drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/doc/ drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/doc/josm/ -rw-r--r-- root/root 10831 2011-04-15 11:38 ./usr/share/doc/josm/copyright drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/doc/josm/examples/ -rw-r--r-- root/root 144 2007-10-26 21:58 ./usr/share/doc/josm/examples/start.html -rw-r--r-- root/root 1422 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/doc/josm/changelog.Debian.gz drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/man/ drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/man/man1/ -rw-r--r-- root/root 1043 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/man/man1/josm.1.gz drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/menu/ -rw-r--r-- root/root 194 2011-04-15 11:38 ./usr/share/menu/josm lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/josm/josm.jar -> josm-0.0.svn3751.jar lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2011-04-16 18:15 ./usr/share/pixmaps/josm.png -> ../../images/logo.png
$ sudo apt-get install josm=0.0.svn3751-2ubuntu1 $ file /usr/share/pixmaps/josm.png /usr/share/pixmaps/josm.png: broken symbolic link to `../../images/logo.png'
Recent versions seem to be ok.
comment:12 by , 13 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | reopened → closed |
(in next regular release)
Invalid. Probably you refer to debian package? Then you need to report that in Debian bugtracker.