> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Nagy Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > I think this is not a regression, but a behaviour change. What did > > the "old" pacman do when we have a real symlink<->dir conflict? I > > mean a conflict which won't disappear after the upgrade_remove part: > > fileconflict003 should pass. > > > > Yeah sure, that is why I still called it a fix. It fixed some cases > (the fileconflict003 one), but caused a regression in others (like > xulrunner case). > But right, we can just say behavior change. > Still, I am confused, when did this behavior change? > I thought it was caused by the patch in the above bug report, but this > happened before 3.1. > And apparently 3.1 behavior is different than 3.2, because 3.1 handled > xulrunner upgrade fine, and not 3.2. > Maybe some other changes that happened in 3.2 caused this behavior > change in combination to that "fix for fileconflict003" patch ? > > > > > P.S.: I will create a pactest for this case. > > > > That would be nice. And even better if you could find out when it > broke :) >
I will go offline until evening. Cannot git be used as a testing machine (with fileconflict004.py) here? Bye _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
