[aur-requests] [PRQ#10498] Deletion Request for signal-desktop

[mrxx]

Thanks for the explanation and sharing the insights, learned a lot, 
won't happen again.

Do you have any suggestions on how to handle a situation like the one I 
explained the correct (Arch) way, apart from putting it into the 
'conflicts' array?

Eli Schwartz wrote on 06.02.2018 23:08:
> On 02/06/2018 02:42 PM, mrxx wrote:
>> I tried to solve this by checking if the library was still required by
>> any other package, only removing it if it was obsolete (assuming it was
>> installed by an earlier version of signal-desktop or having been left
>> from a make-only dependency), but keeping it if there were dependencies.
>> This allowed signal-desktop to co-exist with them. (A check in the start
>> script of signal-desktop made sure it was always started the right way.)
>>
>> I soon removed this after a user complained, just printing instructions
>> how to remove the potentially conflicting library. I also wrote an
>> extensive post explaining the motivation to do so as I did above. I
>> never had the intention to to "ugly" things behind the user's backs.
> 
> Yes, and it is *scary* that you thought it was a good idea to
> recursively run pacman like that. This sort of nonsense is one of the
> top contenders for why we as a community disapprove of Manjaro. It can
> seriously mess up your system if you modify the pacman database
> mid-transaction, and pacman isn't aware of the changes. That's why there
> is a lock to begin with...
> 
> But yes, once people complained you reverted it.
>