How to deal with--errors occurred, no packages were upgraded

arooaroo · 2005-08-19 12:43:10

This has only occurred to me once before, I think.

I was running a pacman -Syu today and it was trying to upgrade kernel2612-cko2-swsusp2 with the new kernel26cko package. The old cko was installed by grabbing the pkgbuild, making and then installing. Pacman automatically picked up that there was a new version to supercede it.

Yet, I get a ton of "exists in filesystem" errors, which ends with "errors occurred, no packages were upgraded."

Now, I've been searching about the best way to deal with such situations. The common approach from previous posts is to force it, with the -f argument. Typically, there is a clause though, that you should only force when the files are owned by a package that pacman knows of. That is, if pacman -Qo [file] doesn't return anything, you are safe to force.

But, in this instance, the offending files are owned, and pacman knows about it. So, what's the way forward? Removing the old package manually? Manually re/moving the conflicting files?

Cheers

phrakture · 2005-08-19 15:37:15

I don't think there's a standard procedure for this... it's really a case by case thing...

If i get "/etc/stupid.conf exists in the filesystem" you can force that no problem... but if it's like "/sbin/lilo exists in the filesystem" then you have problems...

arooaroo · 2005-08-19 19:07:16

Why does it have a problem though? These files were installed by pacman after I ran makepkg. Is it because it feels that these files are in fact not related to the package it's upgrading?

So what about the case of a kernel and its source? Should I force this? My intuition is "no". I feel that I ought to remove the old cko package and then install the new one.

phrakture · 2005-08-19 20:06:17

arooaroo wrote:

Why does it have a problem though? These files were installed by pacman after I ran makepkg. Is it because it feels that these files are in fact not related to the package it's upgrading?

That's correct... when you get a "pkgA conflicts with pkgB" message from pacman, it is because the package specifically has the "conflicts=()" line in the PKGBUILD. pacman does not compare files to determine conflicts.

jerrym · 2005-09-04 00:09:14

phrakture wrote:

pacman does not compare files to determine conflicts.

if thats true, then when i do pacman -Syu, why does it say "checking for file conflicts"? (phrakture - i'm just trying to understand, i appreciate your help and have used your advice here many times with great success. i just felt i should say that as my comment above could have been taken the wrong way )

i just got this when trying to do a system upgrade after adding testing. my conflict is with sane. it says

error: the following file conflicts were found:
sane: /usr/var: exists in filesystem

and then says no packages were upgraded. i cant remove sane because kdegraphics depends on it. what can be done?

jerrym · 2005-09-05 19:36:33

i think there may be a problem in the sane package from testing. i installed smaller chunks of kde (kde-common, kdebase, kdeadmin, etc.) and they all went fine, but when i tried to install kdegraphics, it gave me the error

[root@arch jerry]# pacman -S kdegraphics

Targets: libungif-4.1.3-2 imlib-1.9.15-2 libgphoto2-2.1.6-2 libieee1284-0.2.10-2
         sane-1.0.16-2 fribidi-0.10.5-2 gimp-print-4.2.7-3 ghostscript-7.07.1-5
         t1lib-5.1.0-1 kdegraphics-3.4.2-3

Total Package Size:   23.6 MB

Proceed with upgrade? [Y/n]

checking package integrity... done.
loading package data... done.
checking for file conflicts...
error: the following file conflicts were found:
  sane: /usr/var: exists in filesystem


errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.

should this be filed as a bug report? i did a fresh install and did not have kde installed to begin with, but im pretty sure this happened also when trying to upgrade

jerrym · 2005-09-07 02:39:10

ummm, anyone?

i tried installing just sane by itself from testing on another box and got the same thing, there must be a problem with the sane package in testing. anyone else see this?

Snowman · 2005-09-07 02:48:05

Looks like forcing it works: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=14912

jerrym · 2005-09-07 23:34:15

well, that woked, but isnt there still something wrong with that package? i mean if it has to be forced to install..it didnt do that with the previous version.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-08-19 12:43:10

How to deal with--errors occurred, no packages were upgraded

#2 2005-08-19 15:37:15

Re: How to deal with--errors occurred, no packages were upgraded

#3 2005-08-19 19:07:16

Re: How to deal with--errors occurred, no packages were upgraded

#4 2005-08-19 20:06:17

Re: How to deal with--errors occurred, no packages were upgraded

#5 2005-09-04 00:09:14

Re: How to deal with--errors occurred, no packages were upgraded

#6 2005-09-05 19:36:33

Re: How to deal with--errors occurred, no packages were upgraded

#7 2005-09-07 02:39:10

Re: How to deal with--errors occurred, no packages were upgraded

#8 2005-09-07 02:48:05

Re: How to deal with--errors occurred, no packages were upgraded

#9 2005-09-07 23:34:15

Re: How to deal with--errors occurred, no packages were upgraded

Board footer