Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#507 - APR conflicts with APACHE

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Damir Perisa (damir.perisa) - Thursday, 04 March 2004, 16:44 GMT
Last edited by Dale Blount (dale) - Thursday, 04 March 2004, 16:47 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Jason Chu (jason)
Architecture not specified
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version 0.6 Widget
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 0%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

[root@Asteraceae /]# pacman -S apr

Targets: apr-0.9.3-1

Proceed with upgrade? [Y/n]

:: Retrieving packages from extra...
apr-0.9.3-1 [################] 100%| 337K| 24.9K/s| 00:00:13

checking package integrity... done.
loading package data... done.
checking for file conflicts...
error: the following file conflicts were found:
/usr/lib/libapr-0.so.0: exists in filesystem
/usr/lib/libapr-0.so: exists in filesystem
/usr/lib/libapr-0.la: exists in filesystem
/usr/lib/libapr-0.a: exists in filesystem
/usr/lib/apr.exp: exists in filesystem
/usr/lib/libaprutil-0.so.0: exists in filesystem
/usr/lib/libaprutil-0.so: exists in filesystem
/usr/lib/libaprutil-0.la: exists in filesystem
/usr/lib/libaprutil-0.a: exists in filesystem
/usr/lib/aprutil.exp: exists in filesystem
/usr/bin/apr-config: exists in filesystem
/usr/bin/apu-config: exists in filesystem


[root@Asteraceae /]# pacman -Qo /usr/lib/libapr-0.so.0
/usr/lib/libapr-0.so.0 is owned by apache 2.0.48-5
[root@Asteraceae /]#

either 1 pkg that contains both or apache that depends on apr
This task depends upon

Closed by  Jason Chu (jason)
Friday, 19 March 2004, 06:07 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Comment by Jason Chu (jason) - Thursday, 04 March 2004, 18:09 GMT
If you can find no compelling reason to have apr installed I will remove it. Apache gives us everything that apr does.
Comment by Damir Perisa (damir.perisa) - Thursday, 04 March 2004, 18:26 GMT
dont know if there is a difference in files prodived --- but for people who do not want apache and want apr it is maybe usefull to have them separate (analogy: java) --- but actually i cannot imagine someone not wanting apache installed nowadays
Comment by Jason Chu (jason) - Thursday, 04 March 2004, 18:28 GMT
I've thought of that, but it makes it a million times more difficult to maintain, but doesn't give you a lot extra.
Comment by Damir Perisa (damir.perisa) - Thursday, 04 March 2004, 19:06 GMT
that's true .. anyone made xerces2 working on arch? if it works with only apache (no apr), then i think it is really not needed

but here another argument: if apr comes out as new version, you can keep it more often up-to-date (apache doesnt come out anew, if a part is updated)
Comment by Jason Chu (jason) - Thursday, 04 March 2004, 19:14 GMT
We should talk about this on arch-dev... the choice has to be made by the devs whether to split apr out or leave it in apache. If it's in apache, you can't easily upgrade it.
Comment by Jason Chu (jason) - Friday, 19 March 2004, 06:07 GMT
Removed apr

Loading...