[arch-dev-public] [signoff] bash 3.2.025-4
This is a quick one - please sign off as soon as possible. The current package does NOT contain /etc/profile This cripples newly installed systems. It will, right now, give you a "/etc/profile exists" error. I don't know a way around this... if anyone has a suggestion, that'd be great, but right now we have a big fat error on freshly installed systems. In testing for i686
On Dec 3, 2007 4:00 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a quick one - please sign off as soon as possible.
The current package does NOT contain /etc/profile This cripples newly installed systems.
It will, right now, give you a "/etc/profile exists" error.
I don't know a way around this... if anyone has a suggestion, that'd be great, but right now we have a big fat error on freshly installed systems.
In testing for i686
In testing for x86_64 (signed off for that architecture), and signing off for i686 as well. -Dan
On Dec 3, 2007 4:13 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 4:00 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know a way around this... if anyone has a suggestion, that'd be great, but right now we have a big fat error on freshly installed systems.
In testing for i686
In testing for x86_64 (signed off for that architecture), and signing off for i686 as well.
To be clear here, a -f install of this WILL extract it as a pacnew because the file already exists. This is because it is still in the backup=() array on the new package. Still, it requires a -f. I'll post a news announcement when we get some signoffs ( I want a few minutes for this to simmer at least).
On Dec 3, 2007 5:18 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 4:13 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 4:00 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know a way around this... if anyone has a suggestion, that'd be great, but right now we have a big fat error on freshly installed systems.
In testing for i686
In testing for x86_64 (signed off for that architecture), and signing off for i686 as well.
To be clear here, a -f install of this WILL extract it as a pacnew because the file already exists. This is because it is still in the backup=() array on the new package.
Signed off - however I didn't get a /etc/profile.pacnew file out of it. I had to install with -f.
On Dec 3, 2007 7:23 PM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 5:18 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 4:13 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 4:00 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know a way around this... if anyone has a suggestion, that'd be great, but right now we have a big fat error on freshly installed systems.
In testing for i686
In testing for x86_64 (signed off for that architecture), and signing off for i686 as well.
To be clear here, a -f install of this WILL extract it as a pacnew because the file already exists. This is because it is still in the backup=() array on the new package.
Signed off - however I didn't get a /etc/profile.pacnew file out of it. I had to install with -f.
Er, signed off for i686, sorry. Forgot to specify architecture
On Dec 3, 2007 6:23 PM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 5:18 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 4:13 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 4:00 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know a way around this... if anyone has a suggestion, that'd be great, but right now we have a big fat error on freshly installed systems.
In testing for i686
In testing for x86_64 (signed off for that architecture), and signing off for i686 as well.
To be clear here, a -f install of this WILL extract it as a pacnew because the file already exists. This is because it is still in the backup=() array on the new package.
Signed off - however I didn't get a /etc/profile.pacnew file out of it. I had to install with -f.
You _will_ have to install with -f. However, you didn't get a pacnew because you haven't modified the /etc/profile file (the md5sum was unchanged). =Dan
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Dan McGee wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 6:23 PM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 5:18 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 4:13 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 4:00 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know a way around this... if anyone has a suggestion, that'd be great, but right now we have a big fat error on freshly installed systems.
In testing for i686
In testing for x86_64 (signed off for that architecture), and signing off for i686 as well.
To be clear here, a -f install of this WILL extract it as a pacnew because the file already exists. This is because it is still in the backup=() array on the new package.
Signed off - however I didn't get a /etc/profile.pacnew file out of it. I had to install with -f.
You _will_ have to install with -f. However, you didn't get a pacnew because you haven't modified the /etc/profile file (the md5sum was unchanged).
=Dan
signing off for x86_64 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Eric Belanger wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Dan McGee wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 6:23 PM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 5:18 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 4:13 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 4:00 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know a way around this... if anyone has a suggestion, that'd be great, but right now we have a big fat error on freshly installed systems.
In testing for i686
In testing for x86_64 (signed off for that architecture), and signing off for i686 as well.
To be clear here, a -f install of this WILL extract it as a pacnew because the file already exists. This is because it is still in the backup=() array on the new package.
Signed off - however I didn't get a /etc/profile.pacnew file out of it. I had to install with -f.
You _will_ have to install with -f. However, you didn't get a pacnew because you haven't modified the /etc/profile file (the md5sum was unchanged).
=Dan
signing off for x86_64
and signing off for i686. Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Am Montag, 3. Dezember 2007 23:00:28 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
It will, right now, give you a "/etc/profile exists" error.
Is this a pacman error? According to pacman /etc/profile does not belong to anything. But why is it still there. If it was in a backup array of a previous package, why wasn't it renamed to .pacsave? Is it possible to workaround this by a funky install script hack? I fear that a lot of people will complain about this when this package hits [core]. Pierre -- archlinux.de
On Dec 4, 2007 12:23 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Am Montag, 3. Dezember 2007 23:00:28 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
It will, right now, give you a "/etc/profile exists" error.
Is this a pacman error? According to pacman /etc/profile does not belong to anything. But why is it still there. If it was in a backup array of a previous package, why wasn't it renamed to .pacsave?
Is it possible to workaround this by a funky install script hack? I fear that a lot of people will complain about this when this package hits [core].
It's already there. Here's the thing. It *was* in the package, then got lost in the last one (Dan, Eric, and myself signed off, as far as i know). The problem is that it utterly breaks ftp installs, so we needed to push this soon. pacman -Sf will handle this case just fine, because it is in the backup array of the new bash package.
On Dec 4, 2007 12:23 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Am Montag, 3. Dezember 2007 23:00:28 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
It will, right now, give you a "/etc/profile exists" error.
Is this a pacman error? According to pacman /etc/profile does not belong to anything. But why is it still there. If it was in a backup array of a previous package, why wasn't it renamed to .pacsave?
Is it possible to workaround this by a funky install script hack? I fear that a lot of people will complain about this when this package hits [core].
It's already there. Here's the thing. It *was* in the package, then got lost in the last one (Dan, Eric, and myself signed off, as far as i know). The problem is that it utterly breaks ftp installs, so we needed to push this soon. pacman -Sf will handle this case just fine, because it is in the backup array of the new bash package.
participants (5)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Dan McGee
-
Eric Belanger
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Travis Willard