FS#48122 - libglvnd breaks nvidia-libgl upgrade

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Gabriel Cavallo (gcavallo) - Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 19:05 GMT
Last edited by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 21:08 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages
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 1
Private No

Details

Description: new package "libglvnd" breaks "nvidia-libgl" upgrade.

Additional info:

warning: dependency cycle detected:
warning: nvidia-libgl will be installed before its nvidia-utils dependency

==> Package upgrade only (new release):
extra/nvidia-libgl 361.28-1 1 -> 2
extra/nvidia-utils 361.28-1 1 -> 2
extra/opencl-nvidia 361.28-1 1 -> 2
multilib/lib32-nvidia-libgl 361.28-1 1 -> 2
multilib/lib32-nvidia-utils 361.28-1 1 -> 2

==> New package :
extra/libglvnd 0.0.0.20160210-1 (required by nvidia-libgl)
multilib/lib32-libglvnd 0.0.0.20160210-1 (required by lib32-nvidia-libgl)

error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
libglvnd: /usr/lib/libGL.so.1 exists in filesystem
lib32-libglvnd: /usr/lib32/libGL.so.1 exists in filesystem
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.

Steps to reproduce:

pacman -Syu (from nvidia-libgl 361.28-1 to 361.28-2)
This task depends upon

Closed by  Doug Newgard (Scimmia)
Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 21:08 GMT
Reason for closing:  Not a bug
Comment by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 19:16 GMT
Please follow the instructions here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman#.22Failed_to_commit_transaction_.28conflicting_files.29.22_error
Comment by Javier Fernández (WyRe) - Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 20:02 GMT
To me has worked that :D
Comment by Gabriel Cavallo (gcavallo) - Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 20:15 GMT
using --force worked, but isn't it the package's job to remove and handle those files?

"If the file is owned by another package, file a bug report."
Comment by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 20:20 GMT
Right, "If the file is owned by another package". Was it owned by another package?
Comment by Javier Fernández (WyRe) - Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 20:33 GMT
A strange thing what happened to me is ... I've rename the libGL.so.1 to libGL.so.1.exist.in.filesystem and when the packages have been upgraded te renamed file has been deleted xD but well... the things work fine so ... I guess all is right :)
Comment by Gabriel Cavallo (gcavallo) - Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 21:02 GMT
The symlink wasn't, but it's target (libGL.so.1.0.0) seems to have moved from nvidia-libgl to libglvnd. Not sure what caused the issue.

Anyways I'm not trying to start an argument here. All I know is I couldn't upgrade normally. "bug-worthy" or not, it's not up to me.
Comment by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Wednesday, 10 February 2016, 21:08 GMT
If the symlink wasn't owned by a package, it was created outside of pacman for some reason, so pacman can't manage it. There's nothing we can really do about that.

Loading...