[arch-general] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.34.2-1

[Mario Figueiredo]

On 03-08-2010 16:14, Simon Stoakley wrote:
> On 03/08/10 09:51, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
>> 2010/8/3 Lukáš Jirkovský<l.jirkovsky at gmail.com>:
>>> On 3 August 2010 09:39, Tobias Powalowski<t.powa at gmx.de>  wrote:
>>>> Latest kernel is in testing,
>>>> please signoff for both arches.
>>>>
>>>> I already have
>>>> .35 prepared, a fast signoff would be great.
>>>>
>>>> greetings
>>>> tpowa
>>>> -- 
>>>> Tobias
>>>> Powalowski
>>>> Archlinux Developer&  Package Maintainer
>>>> (tpowa)
>>>> http://www.archlinux.org
>>>> tpowa at archlinux.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I get following error on x86_64:
>>> (1/1) checking for file conflicts                  
>>> [####################] 100%
>>> error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
>>> kernel26: /lib/modules/2.6.34-ARCH/modules.devname exists in filesystem
>>> kernel26: /lib/modules/2.6.34-ARCH/modules.softdep exists in filesystem
>>>
>>> but it may be due to the experiments with kernel26-rc I did earlier 
>>> today.
>>
>> I get this too (on x86_64; didn't check on i686), when trying to
>> upgrade from 2.6.34.1-1. Also, no package owns those two files, but
>> the rest of the /lib/modules/2.6.34-ARCH/modules.* files are owned by
>> kernel26 2.6.34.1-1.
>>
>>
> I also get this, if it's safe to pacman -Sf this, wouldn't it be a 
> good idea to put up a news item,(as i think someone suggested earlier) 
> to stop the forum getting flodded with posts and also to let people 
> know (it is the kernel after all). Just a thought.
>

I'd indeed appreciate if a news item was generated with a little more 
detailed explanation of how to handle with the error. Because so far I 
don't understand from both this and arch-dev-public's thread on the same 
matter.