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#3009 - forcing install of a package does not work for packages with confilcts

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Mircea Bardac (IceRAM) - Saturday, 30 July 2005, 01:42 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category
Status Closed
Assigned To Judd Vinet (judd)
Architecture not specified
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 0.7 Wombat
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

assuming
* I have package A
* I have package B, provides=A, conflicts=A

I can't install them both using -f, because pacman prompts to uninstall the other one (depending on which on is already installed) and fails if I choose "n" for uninstall.

I undestand that pacman is supposed to be error-prone, but is this behaviour the desired one when -f is used? I had the feeling -f should skip all this checking.

Well, a warning might work. Maybe -ff (a new argument) could mean total silence when encountering problems.
This task depends upon

Closed by  arjan timmerman (blaasvis)
Wednesday, 22 March 2006, 23:25 GMT
Reason for closing:  Not a bug
Comment by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Saturday, 30 July 2005, 05:59 GMT
What about -d to skip dependency checks ;)
Comment by Mircea Bardac (IceRAM) - Saturday, 30 July 2005, 07:56 GMT
-d seems to work, but it is not what I had expected, according to "man pacman":
-d, --nodeps
Skips all dependency checks. Normally, pacman will always check a package's depen-
dency fields to ensure that all dependencies are installed and there are no package
conflicts in the system. This switch disables these checks.

-f, --force
Bypass file conflict checks, overwriting conflicting files. If the package that is
about to be installed contains files that are already installed, this option will
cause all those files to be overwritten. This option should be used with care,
ideally not at all.

Quote:
# pacman -Sf wine
:: wine conflicts with cedega-cvs. Remove cedega-cvs? [Y/n] n

error: package conflicts detected

# pacman -Sd wine

Targets: wine-20050628-1

Total Package Size: 11.7 MB

Proceed with upgrade? [Y/n]

---

I still think there's something fishy going on.
P.S. cedaga-cvs is taken from the wiki
Comment by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Sunday, 31 July 2005, 12:20 GMT
Conflict check is for the file conflicts, dependency check is for package conflicts, package depends, etc.
Comment by Mircea Bardac (IceRAM) - Sunday, 31 July 2005, 13:21 GMT
Rephrasing:

# pacman -Sf wine
:: wine conflicts with cedega-cvs. Remove cedega-cvs? [Y/n] n

error: package ***conflicts*** detected

Quote: man pacman
-f, --force
Bypass file ***conflict*** checks, overwriting conflicting files.

-----------

I was reported a CONFLICT and I tried to bypass the CONFLICT with -f.
I don't know why it worked with -d, since -d skips all DEPENDENCY checks.

It does seem logical to me to find a conflict (and to use -f to bypass it), since cedaga-cvs' PKGBUILD has "conflicts=wine" in it. I am reported conflicts so, what does this have to do with dependencies?

That's what I think it's fishy. It might be a bug in the strings used by pacman to report errors. It might be a bug in the error checking code, returning only one type of error ("conflict") for more errors.

I don't know exactly, but pacman isn't speaking the right English to me (or I'm definitely missing something here).
Comment by Judd Vinet (judd) - Wednesday, 24 August 2005, 22:36 GMT
If I change the asterisk layout, perhaps it will elucidate.

# pacman -Sf wine
:: wine conflicts with cedega-cvs. Remove cedega-cvs? [Y/n] n

error: ***package conflicts*** detected

Quote: man pacman
-f, --force
Bypass ***file conflict*** checks, overwriting conflicting files.

Comment by Judd Vinet (judd) - Wednesday, 24 August 2005, 22:37 GMT
We can try and clear this up in the future, by clarifying the -d switch somewhat. File conflicts are very different than package conflicts.
Comment by Mircea Bardac (IceRAM) - Thursday, 25 August 2005, 01:10 GMT
Ups.. sorry for not seeing file/package there...
It still confused me though...

Loading...