On 03/07/13 10:02, Allan McRae wrote: > On 03/07/13 07:56, Rémy Oudompheng wrote: >> On 2013/7/2 Rashif Ray Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> An official announcement is useful here because it requires user >>> intervention. An install message is not appropriate (i.e. not >>> sufficient for the problem at hand). >>> >>> So, yes, if there is no other way to solve this you should post a news >>> announcement explaining the reason why this intervention is required >>> and the steps to take in order to solve it. >> >> I think we can try that. I will upload the current version of packages >> to [testing]. I don't think it is a common practice to sliently >> overwrite files in /etc, but I don't understand why new files get >> installed as .pacnew. >> >> I have tried the upgrade path from a clean Texlive 2012 install and it >> does not replace the old files. >> > > Hi Remy, > > Can you send me a pacman --debug log for the upgrade from a fresh > Texlive 2012 install that shows the .pacnew being created? >
I missed that these files were changing packages. This is pacman bug https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/24543
