On 09/02/13 20:27, Allan McRae wrote: > So... I was looking through the bug tracker and I noticed this: > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/30179#comment105772 > > Essentially, directory on filesystem being replaced by a file. pacman > ignores the conflict
... when using --force ... >and then sees it is trying to replace a directory > with a file and aborts. > > The choices are: > 1) we modify force to delete the directory before installing the file - > this can screw over the local db if the directory is owned. > 2) we look at the conflicts and stop the transaction in non-file-to-file > conflicts even with --force > > I think #2 is the better option here. > > > OR... > > 3) get rid of --force altogether! > > I have good feelings about #3. When do we actually NEED --force? In > most cases a simple rm will fix the conflict and it forces (pun!) the > user to think about what is being done. > > There is only one case I can think of where that is not appropriate - > when a user is trying to recover from deleting their local pacman > database. But then they can use --dbonly to get the initial fix done, > and will need to -Qk and rm etc as necessary... > > > Would anyone object to removing the option completely? > > Allan > > > >
