Re: update to calibre-0.9.15-1

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:48:37 +0530, Martti Kühne <mysatyre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No one that hasn't touched the calibre software will suffer from the
existing files.

i haven't touched the calibre software -- if that means done any manual changes to it's files. if you mean "used the calibre software," that i did.

Python (which creates those files when stuff is used)
packages now provide compiled bytecode which also saves the users'
power, and I think it's a great feature. The downside is that all the
*.pyc/*.pyo stuff is in many cases already on disk and it was actually
the third hunk in [1] that brought in the change. Look up the bug
report [2] that hunk is referring to, which is relevant in this case.
There were other such updates in the past for me - and I believe I
used some for/rm loop in bash instead of pacman --force.

i just moved the not-owned files somewhere else. wouldn't think of using --force unless i knew exactly what was going on.

I think top
note in [3] was added at some point, which will both impose further
cleanness in python packaging and confusion on not-very-savant users
in the future. I also agree with pacman in that it should not handle
such cases, because that's what using arch means to me.

Alternatively, you could have informed yourself about what *.pyc/*.pyo
files are and answered your own question.


"RTFM" makes sense to me. "study python packaging before asking the list" does not.

--
phani.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux