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

[karx]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020, 7:54 PM Javier via arch-general <
arch-general at archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 9/9/20 5:59 PM, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:41:28 -0600
> > Javier via arch-general <arch-general at archlinux.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi !
> >>
> >> On Today's upgrade:
> >>
> >> % pacman -Syu
> >> :: Synchronizing package databases...
> >> ...
> >> Packages (9) ... tigervnc-1.11.0-1 ...
> >> ...
> >>  tigervnc-1.11.0-1-x86_64           131.3 MiB  3.51 MiB/s 00:37
> [########################################################] 100%
> >> (9/9) checking keys in keyring
>
> [########################################################] 100%
> >> (9/9) checking package integrity
> [########################################################] 100%
> >> (9/9) loading package files
>  [########################################################] 100%
> >> (9/9) checking for file conflicts
>  [########################################################] 100%
> >> error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
> >> tigervnc: /usr/sbin exists in filesystem (owned by filesystem)
> >> Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.
> >>
> >> 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 !
> >>
> >
> > NO! DO NOT OVERWRITE! In fact, never overwrite when the file is owned by
> > another package, you'll just create more problems. This is a packaging
> bug, and
> > this package is currently uninstallable on Arch.
> >
> > Scimmia
> >
>
> Understood !  Actually I thought it to be dangerous for sure !
>
> Thanks !
>
> --
> Javier
>

Shouldn't we put something up on the main page about this?

Yash