[pacman-dev] Fileconflict error...
shiningxc at gmail.com
Tue Jul 22 07:09:38 EDT 2008
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
> I think this is not a regression, but a behaviour change. What did the
> "old" pacman do when we have a real symlink<->dir conflict? I mean a
> conflict which won't disappear after the upgrade_remove part:
> fileconflict003 should pass.
Yeah sure, that is why I still called it a fix. It fixed some cases
(the fileconflict003 one), but caused a regression in others (like
But right, we can just say behavior change.
Still, I am confused, when did this behavior change?
I thought it was caused by the patch in the above bug report, but this
happened before 3.1.
And apparently 3.1 behavior is different than 3.2, because 3.1 handled
xulrunner upgrade fine, and not 3.2.
Maybe some other changes that happened in 3.2 caused this behavior
change in combination to that "fix for fileconflict003" patch ?
> P.S.: I will create a pactest for this case.
That would be nice. And even better if you could find out when it broke :)
More information about the pacman-dev