[arch-general] conflict on /usr/bin generated by tigervnc?

[Amish]

On 10/09/20 5:11 am, Javier via arch-general wrote:
> Usually that get fixed by using "--overwrite /usr/sbin".  But I find it wrong for tigervnc to own "/usr/sbin", so I think in this case tigervnc is not right.  Would this be the case, or it's OK for tigervnc to be the owner and then to overwrite?
>
> Thanks !

With due respect to all developers and package maintainers, I think Arch 
needs to have policy that maintainer must be using the package they 
maintain.

This will make sure that they dont simply bump the pkgver / pkgrel and 
release untested package.

This bug can create a disaster for someone, if person blindly tries a 
regular fix to such problems i.e. --overwrite usr/sbin. Their whole 
system would crash as there will be no symlink to usr/bin and many 
executables would go missing. And probably will not boot.

Amish.