[arch-dev-public] [signoff] xz-utils and libarchive-2.7.0-2
allan at archlinux.org
Sun Jun 7 09:57:28 EDT 2009
Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 16:41, Dan McGee<dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre at archlinux.de> wrote:
>>> Am Sonntag 31 Mai 2009 14:14:48 schrieb Pierre Schmitz:
>>>> If everything is OK we can move both to core and remove lzma-utils from
>>> tpowa just asked me but I am not sure about it: Should cz-utils be part of the
>>> base group? It'll be installed anyway because libarchive depends on it. O the
>>> other hand we might want to have a base group which does not depend on
>>> anything which is not a group member.
>> Yes, it should. When I originally asked about adding lzma support, we
>> brought up the fact that it would have to be in the base group.
> Hm, I don't really see a reason for this, can you explain the reason for me?
> Here's my logic:
> a group should not be required to have all dependencies in a group,
> reason: when installing a group pacman installs all packages as
> 'explicitly installed'
> which makes it harder to find no-more-needed dependency in future.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, since I could forgot something about
> pacman while being inactive for so long time.
I agree. It would also make the list of "base" and "base-devel"
packages to select from in the installer much smaller.
> Anyway what really bothers me is this:
> # LANG=C pacman -Su
> :: Starting full system upgrade...
> :: Replace lzma-utils with testing/xz-utils? [Y/n] n
> resolving dependencies...
> looking for inter-conflicts...
> :: xz-utils conflicts with lzma-utils. Remove lzma-utils? [Y/n] n
> error: unresolvable package conflicts detected
> error: failed to prepare transaction (conflicting dependencies)
> :: xz-utils: conflicts with lzma-utils
> Why upgrade process breaks here?
> Is this fixed in pacman 3.3 already?
That is because you are trying to upgrade libarchive but won't let it
install xz-utils. I know it was discussed about pacman removing more
packages from a transaction than just the conflicting package to attempt
get around these issues but I'm not sure what the actual status is.
More information about the arch-dev-public