[arch-general] packages installed to /usr/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and x86_64-unknown-uclibc -- broken??

[Aaron Griffin]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:54 PM, David C. Rankin
<drankinatty at suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 December 2009 07:33:17 and regarding:
>> Does "pacman -Qo <some of this weird files>" return anything?
>>
>
> Flavio,
>
>        Strangely, yes:
>
> 13:49 alchemy:/usr/x86_64-unknown-linux-uclibc/bin> for i in $(ls); do pacman
> -Qo $i; done
> ar is owned by binutils-uclibc 2.19.1-2
> as is owned by binutils-uclibc 2.19.1-2
> ld is owned by binutils-uclibc 2.19.1-2
> nm is owned by binutils-uclibc 2.19.1-2
> objcopy is owned by binutils-uclibc 2.19.1-2
> objdump is owned by binutils-uclibc 2.19.1-2
> ranlib is owned by binutils-uclibc 2.19.1-2
> strip is owned by binutils-uclibc 2.19.1-2
>
> 13:51 alchemy:/usr/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/arm-elf/lib> for i in $(ls); do [[
> ! -h $i ]] && pacman -Qo $i; done
> libbfd-2.20.so is owned by cross-arm-elf-binutils 2.20-1
> libbfd.a is owned by cross-arm-elf-binutils 2.20-1
> libopcodes-2.20.so is owned by cross-arm-elf-binutils 2.20-1
> libopcodes.a is owned by cross-arm-elf-binutils 2.20-1
>
> It looks like all the binutils files are unknown for some reason?
>
> Do you want me to post anything else? I guess I'll uninstall and try to
> reinstall these packages and see if it happens again. Strange.

Those packages are not essential to your system. binutils-uclibc and
cross-arm-elf-binutils are primarily developer tools.