On 9/9/20 6:53 PM, Javier wrote:
On 9/9/20 5:59 PM, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:41:28 -0600 Javier via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi !
On Today's upgrade:
% pacman -Syu :: Synchronizing package databases... ... Packages (9) ... tigervnc-1.11.0-1 ... ... tigervnc-1.11.0-1-x86_64 131.3 MiB 3.51 MiB/s 00:37 [########################################################] 100% (9/9) checking keys in keyring [########################################################] 100% (9/9) checking package integrity [########################################################] 100% (9/9) loading package files [########################################################] 100% (9/9) checking for file conflicts [########################################################] 100% error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) tigervnc: /usr/sbin exists in filesystem (owned by filesystem) Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.
Usually that get fixed by using "--overwrite /usr/sbin". But I find it wrong for tigervnc to own "/usr/sbin", so I think in this case tigervnc is not right. Would this be the case, or it's OK for tigervnc to be the owner and then to overwrite?
Thanks !
NO! DO NOT OVERWRITE! In fact, never overwrite when the file is owned by another package, you'll just create more problems. This is a packaging bug, and this package is currently uninstallable on Arch.
Scimmia
Understood ! Actually I thought it to be dangerous for sure !
Thanks !
BTW, for those waiting for the package fix, it's done, and already replicated on the mirrors. Thanks a lot ! -- Javier