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Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
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Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#69578 - [man-pages-l10n] File conflict on psmisc 23.4-1 and man-pages-l10n 4.2.0-1
Attached to Project:
Community Packages
Opened by Pascal Ernster (hardfalcon) - Sunday, 07 February 2021, 20:24 GMT
Last edited by Christian Hesse (eworm) - Thursday, 11 February 2021, 11:46 GMT
Opened by Pascal Ernster (hardfalcon) - Sunday, 07 February 2021, 20:24 GMT
Last edited by Christian Hesse (eworm) - Thursday, 11 February 2021, 11:46 GMT
|
DetailsThe new psmisc 23.4-1 package contains localized man pages that conflict with those from some of the man-pages-l10n 4.2.0-1 packages, more precisely man-pages-de, man-pages-fr and man-pages-pt_br.
Excerpt from trying to update the psmisc package on a system where man-pages-de 4.2.0-1 is installed: error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) psmisc: /usr/share/man/de/man1/fuser.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by man-pages-de) psmisc: /usr/share/man/de/man1/killall.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by man-pages-de) psmisc: /usr/share/man/de/man1/peekfd.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by man-pages-de) psmisc: /usr/share/man/de/man1/prtstat.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by man-pages-de) psmisc: /usr/share/man/de/man1/pslog.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by man-pages-de) psmisc: /usr/share/man/de/man1/pstree.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by man-pages-de) Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Christian Hesse (eworm)
Thursday, 11 February 2021, 11:46 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: man-pages-l10n 4.9.2-1
Thursday, 11 February 2021, 11:46 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: man-pages-l10n 4.9.2-1
error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
psmisc: /usr/share/man/de/man1/fuser.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by man-pages-de)
psmisc: /usr/share/man/de/man1/killall.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by man-pages-de)
psmisc: /usr/share/man/de/man1/peekfd.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by man-pages-de)
psmisc: /usr/share/man/de/man1/prtstat.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by man-pages-de)
psmisc: /usr/share/man/de/man1/pslog.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by man-pages-de)
psmisc: /usr/share/man/de/man1/pstree.1.gz exists in filesystem (owned by man-pages-de)
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.
`pacman -Ss psmisc`
core/psmisc 23.4-1 [installed: 23.3-4]
Miscellaneous procfs tools
i doubt that it is a user introduced error as i just installed arch afresh a few days ago
and did not install or otherwise put much on the system. there are exclusively pacages
from the offical arch repos. no aur, no compiled source code.
`uname -a`
Linux <pcname> 5.10.13-arch1-2 #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat, 06 Feb 2021 11:07:29 +0000 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Are there any workarounds though? This breaks updates in general.
install psmisc
install man-pages-de
worked for me
If the order of events is (1) psmisc and man-pages-de are installed (2) update of psmisc shows conflicts, then deleting these 6 files indeed seems to be the best option.
If you (1) uninstalled man-pages-de to be able to (2) do a full update including psmisc, then that deleting the 6 files is not a good idea. Reason is that the new ones (dated 2020) would be deleted and "replaced" by the old ones (dated 2016) when (re)installing man-pages-de. The new man pages do contain new program options and corrections.
Have any new issues been introduced?
Folks, this is a bug tracker. Everybody using Arch Linux should be aware how to workaround this issue, if not, there are appropriate forums to request help.
It makes no sense to mention the age of an Arch Linux install.