Are there some known issues due to the latest updates?
Couldn’t find any.
yay -Syu
:: Paketdatenbanken werden synchronisiert …
core ist aktuell
extra ist aktuell
community ist aktuell
multilib ist aktuell
endeavouros ist aktuell
:: Vollständige Systemaktualisierung wird gestartet …
:: libcanberra-pulse durch extra/libcanberra ersetzen? [J/n] j
Abhängigkeiten werden aufgelöst …
Nach in Konflikt stehenden Paketen wird gesucht …
Pakete (16) alsa-lib-1.2.5-2 alsa-plugins-1:1.2.5-2 alsa-topology-conf-1.2.5-1 alsa-ucm-conf-1.2.5-1 alsa-utils-1.2.5-2 at-spi2-core-2.40.2-1 libcanberra-0.30+2+gc0620e4-4
libcanberra-pulse-0.30+2+gc0620e4-3 [Entfernung] libogg-1.3.5-1 libqmi-1.28.6-1 osinfo-db-20210531-1 pulseaudio-alsa-1:1.2.5-2 vte-common-0.64.2-1 vte3-0.64.2-1 wine-6.10-1
youtube-dl-2021.06.06-1
If I choose not to replace libcanberra the update process is aborted.
It’s very rare you actually need to use Rdd (totally breaking the dependency system, horrible idea), it should be safe to just hit yes on the ja/nein prompt that pacman gives you. I did this update this morning without a hitch
Oh. I assumed the user already tried the Yes (‘Y’) option. If that did not work, one can bypass the problem with a -Rdd for the old package since the upgrade will install its replacement anyway.
As you can see I had to choose not to replace the package. If I would have chosen to replace it, the update would still have wanted to replace the needed stuff.
This looks pretty normal to me. It is telling you that the package libcanberra-pulse has been replaced by the package libcanberra. When you say “Yes”, it is removing libcanberra-pulse and installing libcanberra.
I think you would have been fine just entering ‘j’ there.
@ReemZ@dalto@pebcak@codic12
I assumed that user would have already tried both yes and no options and had errors/conflicts. I give them the benefit of doubt and assume that they would have tried a simple Y/n before creating a forum post here. There are indeed situations when replacement of a package fails. I am not sure if this is one of those situations, but I assume so for the sake of treating the user as knowledgeable.
You assume completely wrong. For one: never do pacman -Rdd for any reason. It breaks stuff. Options like those are for testing purposes, not for normal maintenance.
Here’s a tip: don’t assume, ever.
The question was: “Is there a conflict?”
Your answer, like the answer above your post, should have been “No, there’s no conflict”, instead of helping OP getting close to breaking his system.
If you actually look at the terminal outputs pasted, the net effect has been the same as the correct way: just running the upgrade, answering yes to the replacement, and not worry about bloody libcanberra-pulse being removed because it needs to be removed. OP has, fortunately, ended up with a system withlibcanberra and withoutlibcanberra-pulse.
@Trekkie00 please UNmark that post as the solution, as it does nothing to solve anything, it carries great risk which you are clearly unaware of, and you never had a problem in need of a solution to begin with. In future, when pacman asks you to replace one package with another, it’s obviously fine to come and ask about it, but usually the replacement will be intentional and not much more than a name change.
I wasn’t trying to criticize your response. I was just providing my feedback based on the information available which is more than what was available when you initially posted.
There are complex dependency situations where pacman -Rdd is needed, it isn’t only for testing.
That being said, I don’t think this is one of those situations.
@Trekkie00 Try this command, it won’t make any changes, only show you information, so it’s safe to use:
pacman -Qi libcanberra
Then look at the packages mentioned after Provides, you’ll see that libcanberra-pulse is now in fact part of libcanberra (simplifying), and that should be the reason libcanberra replaces libcanberra-pulse.
Have a look at the output of the -Qi option (-Si for not-installed packages) and see what information it provides, that could be useful in the future.
I would have expected the procedure you described. But that wasn’t an option. Because of that reason I chose no
It was the solution for ME. So I marked it as such. I guess that’s still my decision.
There was a problem to solve and the path I chose solved it.
Just using yay -R was not an option because too many packages would have been forced to be removed.
I think there may be a misunderstanding about the pacman output. It doesn’t remove all the packages after [Entfernung]. It puts [Entfernung] after each package it is removing. In the output you included in the first post, it was only removing libcanberra-pulse