Oh, I think I'm loosing track of what the problem was in the first place. :-/
On Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > Please, the correct order of columns for command paco -sMFCndd iptablesis: > > [package size] [missing-size] [number of installed files] [number of missing > files] [number of shared files] [install date] > $ paco -sMFCndd iptables > 2.6M [ ] 134 [ ] (134) 21-Jul-2011 19:57 iptables-1.4.11 > 2.6M [ ] 150 [ ] (150) 22-Jul-2011 18:21 iptables-1.4.11.1 > 2.6M [ ] 150 [ ] (148) 23-Jul-2011 15:30 iptables-1.4.12 > 2.0M [336k] 120 [6 ] (120) 21-Jul-2011 20:13 iptables-1.4.7 OK, so the oldest version of iptables (iptables-1.4.7) which was installed after iptables-1.4.11 has 120 installed files, of which all 120 are shared. So, it should be safe to do a 'paco -U iptables-1.4.7'. As for the other versions of iptables (1.4.11 and 1.4.11.1), the same applies: all installed files are shared. It would seem the shared files are now also owned by iptables-1.4.12 (which is the most recent version we want to keep.) iptables-1.4.12 is the only package that has two files uniquely associated with it. Also, it would seem that the previous attempts to delete iptables (paco -r) did exactly what they should do: all non-shared files are deleted, but since there are still some shared files, the package remains in the database. So, after removing iptables-1.4.7 as described above, do a 'paco -ua' just to be sure. Then, check the output of 'paco -sMFCndd' again. Next, move on to the next oldest version of iptables (1.4.11). If all that is remaining are shared files, remove it from the database. Keep doing this until you wind up with only the most recent version of iptables (1.4.12). DONE -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
