On 10/09/20 5:11 am, Javier via arch-general wrote:
Usually that get fixed by using "--overwrite /usr/sbin". But I find it wrong for tigervnc to own "/usr/sbin", so I think in this case tigervnc is not right. Would this be the case, or it's OK for tigervnc to be the owner and then to overwrite? Thanks !
With due respect to all developers and package maintainers, I think Arch needs to have policy that maintainer must be using the package they maintain.
This will make sure that they dont simply bump the pkgver / pkgrel and release untested package.
This bug can create a disaster for someone, if person blindly tries a regular fix to such problems i.e. --overwrite usr/sbin. Their whole system would crash as there will be no symlink to usr/bin and many executables would go missing. And probably will not boot.
Amish.
