Roman Kyrylych wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 16:41, Dan McGee<dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag 31 Mai 2009 14:14:48 schrieb Pierre Schmitz:
If everything is OK we can move both to core and remove lzma-utils from extra.
tpowa just asked me but I am not sure about it: Should cz-utils be part of the base group? It'll be installed anyway because libarchive depends on it. O the other hand we might want to have a base group which does not depend on anything which is not a group member.
Yes, it should. When I originally asked about adding lzma support, we brought up the fact that it would have to be in the base group.
Hm, I don't really see a reason for this, can you explain the reason for me? Here's my logic: a group should not be required to have all dependencies in a group, reason: when installing a group pacman installs all packages as 'explicitly installed' which makes it harder to find no-more-needed dependency in future. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, since I could forgot something about pacman while being inactive for so long time.
I agree. It would also make the list of "base" and "base-devel" packages to select from in the installer much smaller.
Anyway what really bothers me is this: # LANG=C pacman -Su :: Starting full system upgrade... :: Replace lzma-utils with testing/xz-utils? [Y/n] n resolving dependencies... looking for inter-conflicts... :: xz-utils conflicts with lzma-utils. Remove lzma-utils? [Y/n] n error: unresolvable package conflicts detected error: failed to prepare transaction (conflicting dependencies) :: xz-utils: conflicts with lzma-utils
Why upgrade process breaks here? Is this fixed in pacman 3.3 already?
That is because you are trying to upgrade libarchive but won't let it install xz-utils. I know it was discussed about pacman removing more packages from a transaction than just the conflicting package to attempt get around these issues but I'm not sure what the actual status is. Allan