4 ms·
If you only install supposedly non-conflicting packages, and there are conflicting file locations, isn't that a packaging bug?
by steerablesafe 5y ago
If you only install supposedly non-conflicting packages, and there are conflicting file locations, isn't that a packaging bug?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ginko 5y agoSounds like it, yeah.
- jackosdev 5y agoSome packages give you options for different packages that conflict. E.g. if you install i3 it will let you choose between standard i3, i3-gaps or 5 others. You can only have one installed at a time. I've been using Pacman for years never had a single problem with conflicts or anything else.
- vifon 5y agoYes, and they should be marked as conflicting, as OP suggested.
- __del__ 5y agoaccording to the wiki[1], packages which are non-cohabiting alternatives should use both "provides" and "conflicts" (and it's sufficient to list the original package name in conflicts, rather than all of the conflicting alternatives). [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#Package_relations https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#Package_relations
- dpwm 5y agoNot if you disable file conflict checking, as the author did. > As we used a lot of unsafe hacks (disabling dependency and file conflict checking, for instance) to get this to actually work, I wouldn’t recommend using this system for anything other than proving it’s possible.
- faho 5y agoYes, and they did say they were going to file bugs: > Investigate the file conflicts and file some Arch Linux bugs. with a link to https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/73574 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/73574, which is indeed a bug in the packaging script (it fails to consider python version 3.10 because it only globs 3.?).
- steerablesafe 5y agoAh, I missed that.