[arch-general] libgsf update
What is the proper procedure for updating libgsf. Per the commit message libgnome-gsf was dropped because upstream dropped it. When trying to update the following error occurs. error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: libgsf-gnome: requires libgsf=1.14.21. I realize I can complete the update by pacman -Suf or pacman -Rdd libgsf-gnome then install the libgsf update but would think this would be handled by an install file included with the package. I would prefer not to bork my box so I thought I would ask first for a change. Thanks for your assistance. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
On 12/18/2011 10:31 AM, Myra Nelson wrote:
libgsf-gnome was dropped by upstream in 1.14.22 and by us now since nothing in our repos depend on it. pacman -Rs libgsf-gnome
now, why do you think that -f will solve every problem? -f is not for forcing updates when dependencies are not met! Stop using -f.
Thanks for your assistance.
Myra
-- Ionuț
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 09:01, Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
On 12/18/2011 07:04 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
No offense taken and I hope that my reply wasn't offensive. I was only curios since I see a lot of our users using -f along with -Su and with -Sdd lately and maybe our manual is not clear enough. As for original problem, nothing in our repository depended on that package and there wasn't any way to have it installed. But my logic seems to be faulty. -- Ionuț
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 17:39, Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote: previously installed packges that don't show up with pacq, and if I run pacman -Qdt and used the output to uninstall orphan packages I'm not sure anything would work. I really need to do a complete reinstall but I've got my box setup the way I like and laziness is also a factor. The only time I've used -Rdd is when I was using nvida packages from the AUR and had to remove everything to fix my screwup. I think to many people take the easiest way out when trying to fix something and -f solves the immediate problem. It took me awhile when I moved to Arch from crunchbang to get used to the power available with Arch and how to use it properly. The proper use is the key. Clarifying the manual might help. If you don't mind I'll take a look at the man page and see if I can make the necessary changes. I also wonder about adding a message similar to the one that comes up when you try to run pacman without su or sudo [ error: you cannot perform this operation unless you are root. ] like [ warning: this option should only be used in extreme cases and/or if you know what you're doing ]. Thanks for your assistance. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 18:46, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
Or possibly an admonition to read the recently updated wiki pages that in-duh-viduals ( I'm guility ) don't do regularly. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 18:58, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
What is the proper procedure for sending a patch for the man pages? I've done some work on pacman.8 to reflect some of the wiki changes. Also would it be acceptable to include in the man page that the -f option has been deprecated and shouldn't be used and do the same on the pacman wiki page? Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
There's https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ArchWiki:Requests#Remove_-f_short_optio...
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 21:08, Karol Blazewicz <karol.blazewicz@gmail.com>wrote:
Karol: Thanks for the link. Not quite what I was referring to. From earlier in the conversation:
I was only curios since I see a lot of our users using -f along with -Su and with -Sdd lately and maybe our manual is not clear enough.
I meant adding/emphasizing a warning to the man pages and the wiki page about the use of -f or --force. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
Karol:
Thanks for the link. Not quite what I was referring to.
Argh, you're right, sorry. Let's try again ;P https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=124840 IMHO, writing "This option should be used with care, ideally not at all" as pacman's man page says currently is enough.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 22:17, Karol Blazewicz <karol.blazewicz@gmail.com>wrote:
Karol; All I did as a test was to add the word Warning: to the line and format it as bold to make the warning stand out better. That way if someone is doing a quick scan of the manpage for an answer it won't be missed -- maybe. -f, --force Bypass file conflict checks and overwrite conflicting files. If the package that is about to be installed contains files that are already installed, this option will cause all those files to be overwritten. *Warning: This* * option should be used with care, ideally not at all.* As to the pacman wiki page there seems to be some confusion? on the page. Under Installing Packages: *Warning: *Do not refresh the package list when installing packages (i.e. pacman -Sy package_name); this can lead to dependency issues.[1]<https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=89328> Upgrade <https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman#Upgrading_packages> explicitly first; before installing new packages. Later under Upgrading Packages the wiki page the use of ( pacman -Syu package_name ) is listed. To Arch users who've been around awhile the distinction might be apparent, but to newer users it might not. Would it be better to make both sections read ( pacman -Sy then pacman -S package_name or pacman -Su )? Just a thought. When I do my upgrades I use pacman -Sy then pacman -Su. It seems more sane to me and doesn't take that much more effort. It also makes one think about what they're doing instead of pacman -Syu then anwser yes and fubar one's box. I know Arch users are supposed to be savvy linux users, but the above wiki change would IMHO clarify the process. The Arch wiki is the best on the net. I've seen other sights reference some of the articles for setting up their software. Keep up the good work. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
'pacman -Sy foo' or alternatively 'pacman -Sy' followed by 'pacman -S foo' is a bad idea: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=89328
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 22:55, Karol Blazewicz <karol.blazewicz@gmail.com>wrote:
As usual I don't speak the same language as most people. My update procedure is: $ pacman -Sy < syncing databases> $ pacman -Su When I install a package its: pacman -Ss pkgname Then allow pacman to take care of deps. In my example above I should have separated the two and I wrote it wrong because of that. Installing should not be combined with syncing the database. However, I don't like pacman -Syu either. The wiki and the man page differ for syncing and installing which could also be confusing.
From the examples section from the current man pages for pacman(8).
Examples pacman -Syu gpm Update package list, upgrade all packages, and then install gpm if it wasn?t already installed. Pacman 4.0.1 2011-11-20 PACMAN(8) Which is, as you pointed out, is wrong and so does the wiki. I'm trying to cover to many topics at once, so I'll stick to the man page for now. Sorry for the noise. Myra Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net> wrote:
pacman -Syu gpm
It's fine because it's equal to pacman -Sy + pacman -Su + pacman -S gpm pacman -Su is the crucial step you shouldn't omit. I think you should use the wiki talk page for suggestions how to improve the article.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 01:36, Karol Blazewicz <karol.blazewicz@gmail.com>wrote:
Will do. -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
participants (3)
-
Ionut Biru
-
Karol Blazewicz
-
Myra Nelson