Pacman

Historical bug tracker for the Pacman package manager.

The pacman bug tracker has moved to gitlab:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/issues

This tracker remains open for interaction with historical bugs during the transition period. Any new bugs reports will be closed without further action.
Tasklist

FS#1940 - gtk2 depends on x-server, but xfree86 not ordered properly

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Jason Chu (jason) - Wednesday, 29 December 2004, 22:29 GMT
Last edited by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Friday, 20 January 2006, 16:56 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category
Status Closed
Assigned To Judd Vinet (judd)
Architecture not specified
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version 0.7 Wombat
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

If we had a package called x-server, then it would be upgraded/installed before gtk2 because gtk2 depends on x-server. But because we have a package called xfree86 (or xorg), gtk2 is installed/upgraded first.

Have fun with that one.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Jason Chu (jason)
Monday, 27 March 2006, 01:42 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  See comments
Comment by dorphell (dorphell) - Saturday, 08 January 2005, 17:05 GMT
Iti's not that big a deal in most cases but if you want this issue gone, we'll prolly have to make pacman check groups, but that may get ugly.
Comment by Jason Chu (jason) - Saturday, 08 January 2005, 18:35 GMT
But in the cases where it is a big deal, it's a really big deal.
Comment by Jason Chu (jason) - Saturday, 08 January 2005, 18:36 GMT
Couldn't you just track the reason a package was added to the upgrade list and then sort on that field?

I don't think it's related to groups, it's definitely related to provides.
Comment by arjan timmerman (blaasvis) - Saturday, 01 October 2005, 16:02 GMT
status ?
Comment by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Sunday, 26 March 2006, 22:53 GMT
I have a feeling this is a non-issue now that all the x packages are modular. Should this be closed?
Comment by Jason Chu (jason) - Sunday, 26 March 2006, 23:57 GMT
Yeah, it probably isn't a problem any more. If it comes up, we can create a new bug.

Loading...