FS#33979 - [mesa-libgl] 9.1-1 conflicts with nvidia-utils, breaks aur/nvidia-utils-bumblebee

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx) - Saturday, 23 February 2013, 17:20 GMT
Last edited by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Sunday, 24 February 2013, 09:38 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Testing
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture All
Severity High
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 2
Private No

Details

Description:

Due to recent mesa packages reorganization, testing/mesa-libgl (9.1-1) now conflicts=nvidia-utils.

While this is generally correct, it breaks aur/nvidia-utils-bumblebee.
That package deploys nvidia's libgl repacked into a different directory (therefore it does not conflict with mesa-libgl) but provides=nvidia-utils to fullfill other packages' dependencies.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Andreas Radke (AndyRTR)
Sunday, 24 February 2013, 09:38 GMT
Reason for closing:  Not a bug
Additional comments about closing:  AUR packages are unsupported and may need to be fixed by their maintainers.
Comment by Ionut Biru (wonder) - Saturday, 23 February 2013, 20:42 GMT
i don't see any problem when using packages from repos.
Comment by Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx) - Saturday, 23 February 2013, 21:02 GMT
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "packages from repos"? There are no bumblebee packages in "official" arch repos...
Comment by Ionut Biru (wonder) - Saturday, 23 February 2013, 21:05 GMT
packages from core/extra/community. whatever you have from aur is unsupported.
Comment by Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx) - Saturday, 23 February 2013, 21:32 GMT
Of course. Actually, the bug is not about a single package in AUR: the change in mesa packaging is ideologic. It effectively makes mesa conflict any package that needs an nvidia blob, thus ceasing to support hybrid intel/nvidia systems.

IMO this is a good reason to open a bug against mesa packaging. Do I need to change the bug's wording to make clear the above "ideologic" inconsistency?

Loading...