On Dec 3, 2007 5:18 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Dec 3, 2007 4:13 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On Dec 3, 2007 4:00 PM, Aaron Griffin 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 6:23 PM, Travis Willard wrote:

On Dec 3, 2007 5:18 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On Dec 3, 2007 4:13 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On Dec 3, 2007 4:00 PM, Aaron Griffin 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, Eric Belanger wrote:

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On Dec 3, 2007 6:23 PM, Travis Willard wrote:

...

On Dec 3, 2007 5:18 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On Dec 3, 2007 4:13 PM, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On Dec 3, 2007 4:00 PM, Aaron Griffin 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.

On Dec 4, 2007 12:23 AM, Pierre Schmitz 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.