[arch-general] Where does /usr/bin/uwsgi come from? [Solved]
peter.nabbefeld at gmx.de
Wed Jan 23 19:31:49 UTC 2019
Am 23.01.19 um 18:56 schrieb Daniel Sonck via arch-general:
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 5:03:05 PM CET Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
>> BTW, I've "pipped" some python modules, including django, without exact
>> knowledge what's imported - is it possible to import such executables
>> this way?
>> Am 23.01.19 um 16:57 schrieb Peter Nabbefeld:
>>> Hello all,
>>> I've got sth. strange:
>>> I wanted to install the "uwsgi" package, but the binray is already
>>> installed. "pacman -Qo uwsgi" results in "No package owns
>>> /usr/bin/uwsgi" (German: "Kein Paket besitzt /usr/bin/uwsgi").
>>> So, why is it on my laptop? I'd guess it's probably been installed at
>>> some time with apache httpd but has been removed later, but don't
>>> know. Anybody knows about such an issue?
>>> Kind regards
> Installing by pip is generally not a good idea as it bypasses the package
> manager which can lead to conflicts when you want the official package. You
> can install django by installing python-django.
> If the package you want is not available in the repositories or AUR, you might
> want to use one of the "python environment" wrappers. This allows you to
> create an isolated python install where you can safely install things with
> pip. In addition this allows you to "lock" to specific versions if you need
> According to the wiki, the uwsgi executable can be installed through the same-
> named package, so it seems that you most likely accidentally installed it from
Hm, more suspicious things noticed:
I had an installation file in my package cache from Jan, 7th. The bin
file was from today (couldn't help other way than to delete it now) with
1429376 bytes. Now re-installed with package from Jan, 7th, containing
Hm, I had a problem installing uwsgi this morning which seemed having to
do with the mirror lists, so I decided to make a complete update then.
Probably the mirror which caused the problems had a updated but not yet
working version of the package ... I'll not be able to investigate that
further - but if I'm right, it shouldn't cause any more problems.
More information about the arch-general