Re: [arch-general] "npm" package issues
Eli, > The files should definitely be owned, though... I suspect your issue > is due to upgrading the pacman version, resulting in some files that > could not be deleted due to not existing, but were not part of the new > package and therefore did not exist afterward either. thanks. in theory (modulo fat fingers), the only files i *removed* were ones that [pacman -Qo] said were unowned. and, *those* files were unowned post [pacman -Syu]. a time machine would help. absent that, again, i guess we'll "let that mystery be". thanks again. cheers, Greg
Re: [arch-general] "npm" package issues
Yash, i (according to the pacman log) explicitly installed npm-check-updates. (i've just now removed it; i think i installed it when i was initially flailing around, trying to understand the npm-verse.) in terms of arch packages, the arch package page https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/npm-check-updates/ says the arch package npm-check-updates depends on the arch npm and semver packages. in addition, npm-check-updates depends on a large number of *npm* packages, including the one you mention, rc-config-loader. in addition, the arch *npm* package includes (the npm package) "rc". it's a convoluted it world out there. cheers, Greg ps -- that every web site i build has its own local copies of all the npm packages used for that site is both a (simplification) boon and a (disk usage) shame. but, i digress.
Re: [arch-general] "npm" package issues
this is just a status update, mostly for anyone in the future who might find this useful for their problem. but, if anyone in the near-present has any comment, i'm happy. (and, i appreciate all the help up to now!) presumably this is all fallout from some historic "npm update -g". way too many details follow. i removed all files from /usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules *not* owned by the npm package. then, [pacman -Syu] (without '--overwrite', as the offending files have been removed)succeeded. but, in the output, immediately after (192/192) checking available disk space (and some trailing ###...) there were a number of lines like warning: could not get file information for usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/meant/.npmignore warning: could not get file information for usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/meant/.travis.yml warning: could not get file information for usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/rc/node_modules/ warning: could not get file information for usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/rc/node_modules/minimist/ warning: could not get file information for usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/rc/node_modules/minimist/.travis.yml warning: could not get file information for usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/rc/node_modules/minimist/LICENSE warning: could not get file information for usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/rc/node_modules/minimist/example/ [pacman -Qo] says they are all owned by no package. if that is so, what is causing the upgrade process to look for them? then, after those warnings (in case context is of use) :: Running pre-transaction hooks... (1/2) Removing linux initcpios... (2/2) Unregistering Haskell modules... :: Processing package changes... ( 1/192) upgrading alsa-card-profiles ( 2/192) upgrading alsa-firmware (with some trailing ###... on the last two lines). and, after a bit (144/192) upgrading npm (145/192) upgrading npm-check-updates (ditto) .../rc/package.json shows a dependency on minimist. [pacman -Qo] doesn't seem to know any of the warned-about files; and [pacman -Qkk npm] says "0 altered files" (ditto for [pacman -Qkk npm-check-updates]). (and, everything under /usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules is owned by (the new) "npm 6.14.8-2". unfortunately, i did *not* run [pacman -Qkk npm] *before* doing [pacman -Syu]. cheers, again thanks, sorry for all the detail, Greg
Re: [arch-general] "npm" package issues
thanks, Nick and Maarten. i guess all paths include some trepidation on my part. Nick -- i think it's a good assumption i *did* do some sort of "npm ... -g" action. i've often wondered how distributions (arch and others) deal with users of R, (now) npm, etc., doing a system-wide install of (sub-)packages. (and, in my right mind, i try to avoid doing such system-wide installs.) cheers, Greg
Re: [arch-general] "npm" package issues
hi, Toni, thanks for the question. actually, i don't know, but if i bothered to sudo, it would have been to do -g (global). do you know (maybe it's a stupid, "well, duh!", question...) if, in that case, my system would become "un-pacman'able"? especially, in such as way as i've described. cheers, Greg
[arch-general] "npm" package issues
hi. [hope all are well, etc.]
i use the npm package (for managing javascript packages).
today i tried "pacman -Syu", and i got a number of errors about files
under /usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules that "exists in
filesystem":
(182/182) checking for file conflicts
error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
npm: /usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/meant/.github/workflows/ci.yml
exists in filesystem
npm: /usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/minimist/.travis.yml exists in
filesystem
... (about minimist)
these are files that are not owned by the npm package. the relevant
find command
: find /usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/ -exec pacman -Qo {} \; |
:grep -v 'is owned by npm 6.14.8-1'
shows two files in some sort of ./.bin/ directory
error: No package owns /usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/.bin/node-gyp
error: No package owns /usr/lib/node_modules/npm/node_modules/.bin/semver
and then a number in a small number of npm packages, namely in
- meant (the .github subdirectory)
- minimist (the whole directory, i think)
- node-gyp (the whole directory)
- semver (the whole directory)
that are also in the "No package owns" state.
note that [pacman -Syu] only complains about meant and minimist, not
node-gyp or semver.
first off, i wonder if anyone has ideas of how i ended up in this
situation? i know that occasionally npm will exclaim, with enthusiasm,
that a new, updated version, is available, and offer me a chance to
update it. normally i don't run as root. but, if i had, in the past,
sudo'd npm, and let it update itself, might *that* have produced this?
then, second, i'm ignorant enough to not be sure what to do and am
looking for advice. i can do [pacman --overwrite]. i could, i suppose
(at what consequence?:) [pacman -R npm], then re-install. (though i
assume i'd have the same problem, as pacman would presumably leave
untouched the files not owned by npm.) i could just delete the
offending files pacman complains about (meant/.github/..., and
minimist/...).
okay, thanks in advance for any thoughts.
cheers, Greg
Re: [arch-general] Belated Arch-Conf pacman improvement suggestion
thanks everybody for the conference! in addition to the content (and getting to see at least a few people's faces), the production details were great. > When updating, if on the first repo, the first mirror selected > times-out, then mark that repo failed for the remaining repo checks so > you don't sit through two more timeouts on a repo that is known failed > at that point. something like this would be nice (where the "marking" would survive for "this run" of pacman, and maybe really means, "move to the end of the list of mirrors to try"). cheers, Greg
Re: [arch-general] conflict on /usr/bin generated by tigervnc?
Eli, > And I would like to reiterate: really, really, REALLY, do not use > --overwrite unless you know what you're doing or have done as the OP did > and asked (and been told to do so). The entire *point* of the option is > to declare that your Arch installation is broken and you need to tell > pacman that pacman is wrong about your files. By stepping off the beaten > path, you incur the possibility of being wrong and making things a lot > worse. i wonder if maybe a suitable, upper-cased, warning added to the "--overwrite" section of the man page might be useful? cheers, Greg
