On Wed, Sep 9, 2020, 7:54 PM Javier via arch-general < arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/9/20 5:59 PM, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:41:28 -0600 > > Javier via arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hi ! > >> > >> On Today's upgrade: > >> > >> % pacman -Syu > >> :: Synchronizing package databases... > >> ... > >> Packages (9) ... tigervnc-1.11.0-1 ... > >> ... > >> tigervnc-1.11.0-1-x86_64 131.3 MiB 3.51 MiB/s 00:37 > [########################################################] 100% > >> (9/9) checking keys in keyring > > [########################################################] 100% > >> (9/9) checking package integrity > [########################################################] 100% > >> (9/9) loading package files > [########################################################] 100% > >> (9/9) checking for file conflicts > [########################################################] 100% > >> error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) > >> tigervnc: /usr/sbin exists in filesystem (owned by filesystem) > >> Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded. > >> > >> 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 ! > >> > > > > NO! DO NOT OVERWRITE! In fact, never overwrite when the file is owned by > > another package, you'll just create more problems. This is a packaging > bug, and > > this package is currently uninstallable on Arch. > > > > Scimmia > > > > Understood ! Actually I thought it to be dangerous for sure ! > > Thanks ! > > -- > Javier > Shouldn't we put something up on the main page about this? Yash