On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think we should just put some jury-rigged, hopefully passes both 003 >> and 004 code in here and really attempt to fix this on the larger >> scale post-3.2. Xavier, would a revert of my "useless check" patch >> solve the problem for now? >> > > Nagy clearly said that part is broken and does not even do what it is > supposed to do. > Besides, while 003 indeed passes, the similar 005 test case does not. > And finally, all the quick hacks I did like this during the 3.1 > releases, "to be cleaned up for 3.2", are all still here. > > The only options I can support are the following ones : > 1) doing nothing. I was able to work around the xulrunner case just > fine with pacman -Rd xulrunner && pacman -S xulrunner > 2) nagy solution : check ownerships of all files inside the conflicting dir > 3) roll back system : FS#8585 > > Note that all these options can be followed, in the same order (first > 1, then later 2, then even later 3).
OK, this is our blocker. I plan on pushing the rest of my stuff out tonight and that will be our 3.2.0 release if possible. What do we do here? I'd like a statement of exactly what to do (or nothing at all), or a patch to implement a short-term fix. -Dan _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev