Arch Linux

mass_t

Member

Registered: 2015-04-21

Posts: 57

ruby-bundler: /usr/share/man/man5/gemfile.5.gz exists in filesystem (o

:: Proceed with installation? [Y/n]
(10/10) checking keys in keyring                                                  [##############################################] 100%
(10/10) checking package integrity                                                [##############################################] 100%
(10/10) loading package files                                                     [##############################################] 100%
(10/10) checking for file conflicts                                               [##############################################] 100%
error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
ruby-bundler: /usr/share/man/man5/gemfile.5.gz exists in filesystem (owned by ruby)
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.
error installing repo packages

loqs

Member

Registered: 2014-03-06

Posts: 17,314

Re: ruby-bundler: /usr/share/man/man5/gemfile.5.gz exists in filesystem (o

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/70398

demux

Member

Registered: 2020-01-05

Posts: 2

Re: ruby-bundler: /usr/share/man/man5/gemfile.5.gz exists in filesystem (o

Removing the  /usr/share/man/man5/gemfile.5.gz file worked for me

Scimmia

Fellow

Registered: 2012-09-01

Posts: 11,541

Re: ruby-bundler: /usr/share/man/man5/gemfile.5.gz exists in filesystem (o

Removing the  /usr/share/man/man5/gemfile.5.gz file worked for me

That's a terrible idea. You now have a file owned by two different package in the pacman database. When it gets fixed, the file may just disappear all together.

demux

Member

Registered: 2020-01-05

Posts: 2

Re: ruby-bundler: /usr/share/man/man5/gemfile.5.gz exists in filesystem (o

Man page for something I don't use seems like something I can part with

Lesmana

Member

Registered: 2015-05-04

Posts: 18

Re: ruby-bundler: /usr/share/man/man5/gemfile.5.gz exists in filesystem (o

That's a terrible idea. You now have a file owned by two different package in the pacman database. When it gets fixed, the file may just disappear all together.

question: if i deleted the file would it not be enough to do

pacman -S ruby ruby-bundler

once the problem is fixed?

i agree that leaving the system in an inconsistent state is generally a bad idea. but in this case it is a manpage. so the potential damage (not being able to read the manpage) is managable and the fix seems straightforward.