Thanks for all your thoughts.
it will help me try something to better maintain my boxes.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 15:32:35 -0500, Kyle wrote:
> I can see a
> whole lot of other explicitly installed packages as well as packages that
> are installed as build dependencies that would also be removed using this
> method, which is unacceptable at least on my system.
If you don't want package
On 14 February 2018 at 21:32, Kyle wrote:
> Maarten de Vries ALIANDIKA:
> # pacman -Rs $(pacman -Qqdt)
>
> Unfortunately this will break my system. It's trying to remove git for one
> thing, which is definitely something I need. Not to mention that I
> installed git explicitly, so pacman defini
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 03:32:35PM -0500, Kyle wrote:
> Maarten de Vries ALIANDIKA:
> # pacman -Rs $(pacman -Qqdt)
>
> Unfortunately this will break my system. It's trying to remove git for one
> thing, which is definitely something I need. Not to mention that I installed
> git explicitly, so pa
Maarten de Vries ALIANDIKA:
# pacman -Rs $(pacman -Qqdt)
Unfortunately this will break my system. It's trying to remove git for
one thing, which is definitely something I need. Not to mention that I
installed git explicitly, so pacman definitely shouldn't be removing it.
I can see a whole lo
On 14 February 2018 at 19:35, Eduardo Machado via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> 2018-02-10 1:55 GMT-02:00 Doug Newgard via arch-general <
> arch-general@archlinux.org>:
>
> > Not gremlins, just an old package that never got cleaned out. Pacman
> > doesn't do
> > this automati
2018-02-10 1:55 GMT-02:00 Doug Newgard via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org>:
> Not gremlins, just an old package that never got cleaned out. Pacman
> doesn't do
> this automatically.
>
Sorry to hijack this trhead,
but so that pacman does not clean automagically this kind of packages. W
On 02/09/2018 09:55 PM, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 21:54:10 -0600
> "David C. Rankin" wrote:
>
>> On 02/09/2018 09:49 PM, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
>>> It no longer exists in the repos. You have nothing depending on it. It's
>>> causing you problems. The
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 21:54:10 -0600
"David C. Rankin" wrote:
> On 02/09/2018 09:49 PM, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
> > It no longer exists in the repos. You have nothing depending on it. It's
> > causing you problems. The solution seems obvious.
>
> Obvious solution applied, (pacman -R
On 02/09/2018 09:49 PM, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
> It no longer exists in the repos. You have nothing depending on it. It's
> causing you problems. The solution seems obvious.
Obvious solution applied, (pacman -R libxfont), update proceeded normally,
gremlins?
Sorry for the noise...
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 21:46:43 -0600
"David C. Rankin" wrote:
> On 02/09/2018 09:17 PM, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 20:53:01 -0600
> > "David C. Rankin" wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Attempting to upgrade tonight I am met with a fontsproto breaks
> >> dependen
On 02/09/2018 09:17 PM, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 20:53:01 -0600
> "David C. Rankin" wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Attempting to upgrade tonight I am met with a fontsproto breaks dependency
>> 'fontsproto>=2.1.3' error and pacman quits. Is this a repo-sync issue or is
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 20:53:01 -0600
"David C. Rankin" wrote:
> All,
>
> Attempting to upgrade tonight I am met with a fontsproto breaks dependency
> 'fontsproto>=2.1.3' error and pacman quits. Is this a repo-sync issue or is
> this a bug?
>
It's neither. Why do you still have libxfont instal
13 matches
Mail list logo
