Greetings from Tacoma, WA, USA, only 2,668 cars stolen last year, Xavier! On Friday, June 29, in the 2007th year of our Lord, you wrote:
(with perl last), so that shouldn't cause any problems.
Anyway, that's maybe not ideal, but pacman has always worked fine that way (not overwriting dir symlinks), while the current behavior of deleting symlinks break everything.
As a hotfix: file conflict error would be best imho.
hm, I'm not sure what you mean here :) Just fail if there is a symlink on filesystem instead of a directory ? I'm not sure people with an /opt symlink will be more happy with this behavior. Same for all these perl packages.
Just popping in for a 2 second clarification. ;) Most perl modules in arch are current installed into /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl (arch dependendent modules) and /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/current (arch independent modules). The reason for the symlink farm is because the archlinux _perl_ package is compiled to only look in /usr/lib/perl5/x.x.x/ for modules. Packages which install modules into /usr/lib/perl5/x.x.x are misbehaving, or at least misbehaving to archlinux convention. Pacman should not replace /usr/lib/perl5/x.x.x/ with a directory, but any package installing modules into that path are broken anyway. ;) I've been working on http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Perl_Policy which hopefully will provide some standarization. Not a lot of interest so far though. I think most people interested in perl+archlinux use my perlcpan repository anyway. -- Take it easy, Charles FSF Apologist, WikiNut, Concrete Analyst, etc. JABBER: cmauch@gmail.com GIZMO: charlesmauch AIM: cmauch5 Please send personal email to cmauch@gmail.com :: I am immune to all forms of temptation and seduction. Except for Cute.