On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Allan McRae wrote:

Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

...

Hi pacman devs,

Sometimes it happens that a user has to force an upgrade because pacman detects an file conflict.

Some of those cases are caused by the known link vs. regular file/directory problem.

Others are caused by the fact that a file wasn't tracked by pacman before. (e.g. something that was created by an install script before and is part of the package itself now)

I am not sure if the first case can even be fixed at all. So what about an variable I could define in the PKGBUILD which would handle this?

      overwrite=('usr/lib/somefile' 'usr/lib/someotherfile')

I am not sure if this is completly insane and how difficult to implement this mgiht be.

The concept is a decent idea, but we'd really have to make sure it's used sparingly. I could forsee this overtaking "conflicts" with AUR packages. Perhaps if this just prompted the user?

  foobar-1.0-2 wants to overwrite /usr/lib/zomg.so. Allow? [y/N]

foobar-1.0-2 wants to overwrite /usr/lib/zomg.so _which is not tracked by pacman_. Allow? [y/N]

Otherwise, this is interesting.  A bug report would be good so we keep track of this.

Redux: /usr/lib/zomg.so is not owned by any package. Allow foobar-1.0-2 to overwrite this file? [y/N] Optional: s/overwrite/claim ownership of/

Nagy Gabor wrote:

...

Redux: /usr/lib/zomg.so is not owned by any package. Allow foobar-1.0-2 to overwrite this file? [y/N]

Optional: s/overwrite/claim ownership of/

In this case we don't need overwrite option at all, right? (This can be detected automatically. However, this detection is slow.)

I had just thought the same thing but why would it be so slow? Would the conflict checking not already find the conflict with an unowned file on the system and so this is just adding a query? Allan

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

...

Nagy Gabor wrote:

...

...

Redux: /usr/lib/zomg.so is not owned by any package. Allow foobar-1.0-2 to overwrite this file? [y/N]

Optional: s/overwrite/claim ownership of/

In this case we don't need overwrite option at all, right? (This can be detected automatically. However, this detection is slow.)

I had just thought the same thing but why would it be so slow? Would the conflict checking not already find the conflict with an unowned file on the system and so this is just adding a query?

I don't think we'd want to do this automatically. What if I actually installed something via "make install" and don't want it overwritten? Or perhaps I want a chance to C-c the operation to fiddle with these overwrite files... _______________________________________________

I didn't say that I vote to keep confirmation question and then you can answer no. By the way, it can be always useful (but slow) to query fileowners. In case of fileconflict, we just get an error message "/usr/bin/foo exists in filesystem", so pacman doesn't inform us about (file)conflicting packages ("local package foo conflict with transaction package foo-ng"). Bye