On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:02:53 -0500, "David C. Rankin"
wrote:
> I'm not knocking Arch, I'm just trying to explore how much work it
> would take to make pacman just a little smarter so it avoids some of
> these things. That is what I DON'T know.
The work it would take is not the only problem
On 09/03/2010 01:11 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
That being said, it would probably be possible to implement something
like what you seem to be suggesting. I doubt it ever will though,
because this IS very much a corner case.
Cool -- now that's a clean answer. On to the next improvement idea...
--
Da
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 23:02 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 09/01/2010 06:08 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> > Pacman helps you manage your system, it doesn't (and shouldn't) try to
> > make assumptions about stuff like this, because that's your job. You
> > know your system better than anyone else (idea
On 09/01/2010 06:08 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
Pacman helps you manage your system, it doesn't (and shouldn't) try to
make assumptions about stuff like this, because that's your job. You
know your system better than anyone else (ideally).
And your assertion about 'blowing up a 288 package update' is n
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 05:39 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
> On 09/01/2010 07:08 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:58 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
> >> On 09/01/2010 08:59 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 07:44 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
> >>>
> but in any even
On 09/01/2010 07:08 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:58 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 09/01/2010 08:59 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 07:44 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
but in any event, related or not,
dovecot should update without failing due to the existing
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 23:35 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 09/01/2010 06:08 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
>
> OK, I'm buying it. What you are telling me is that for 1X there was NO
> dovecot.conf (IIRC it was something like dovecot.conf.example because I
> compared
> something to my suse dovecot.co
On 09/01/2010 06:08 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:58 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 09/01/2010 08:59 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 07:44 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
but in any event, related or not,
dovecot should update without failing due to the existing
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:58 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 09/01/2010 08:59 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 07:44 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
> >
> >> but in any event, related or not,
> >> dovecot should update without failing due to the existing dovecot.conf
> >
> >
> > T
On 09/01/2010 08:59 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 07:44 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
but in any event, related or not,
dovecot should update without failing due to the existing dovecot.conf
The dovecot.conf file was created by you previously, hence why the
update is failing.
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 07:44 -0500, David C. Rankin wrote:
> but in any event, related or not,
> dovecot should update without failing due to the existing dovecot.conf
The dovecot.conf file was created by you previously, hence why the
update is failing. The new dovecot package provides dovecot.
On 09/01/2010 07:44 AM, David C. Rankin wrote:
Guys,
The dovecot update needs to be fixed. Currently, on upgrade you get:
checking package integrity...
(288/288) checking for file conflicts [#]
100%
error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
dov
Guys,
The dovecot update needs to be fixed. Currently, on upgrade you get:
checking package integrity...
(288/288) checking for file conflicts
[#] 100%
error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
dovecot: /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf exists
13 matches
Mail list logo
