On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:29:46 -0500 "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/10/2012 02:25 AM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: > > I can't believe this. You are an Arch user and it never occurred to > > you that you should go check with a pacman -Ss gimp-light, and then > > when there is no result, check the AUR? How about a pacman -Si > > scribus? > > > > Believe it. > > Here, the issue isn't "can't you check", the issue is "why did scribus > attempt to satisfy a dependency with gimp-light?" That is why I posted the > question. I had never seen pacman attempt to satisfy and dependency with a > non-existent or aur package before. But it did. The lack of a gimp-light > caused pacman to fail to upgrade anything. Thus, the post. The questions > wasn't "why isn't gimp-light in the repos?" or "Is AUR the only place for > gimp-light?", the question was "why/how is scribus looking for it in the > first place?" > It doesn't. Either you have a broken system or a voodoo magician nearby (and we don't believe in magic). What was the exact error of pacman? -- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
