Some pacman conflicts I'm worried about

General system Pacman
1

So I run yay -Syu as usual today I got this:

[rapta@endeavour Storage]$ yay -Syu
[sudo] password for rapta: 
:: Synchronizing package databases...
 core is up to date
 extra                                                                                              1712.2 KiB  1301 KiB/s 00:01 [------------------------------------------------------------------------------] 100%
 community                                                                                             7.0 MiB  2.22 MiB/s 00:03 [------------------------------------------------------------------------------] 100%
 multilib is up to date
 endeavouros                                                                                          33.4 KiB  40.4 KiB/s 00:01 [------------------------------------------------------------------------------] 100%
 chaotic-aur                                                                                           2.3 MiB   800 KiB/s 00:03 [------------------------------------------------------------------------------] 100%
:: Starting full system upgrade...
:: Replace at-spi2-atk with extra/at-spi2-core? [Y/n]

Should I replace at-spi2-atk with extra/at-spi2-core or not?
Idk what this package does.

1 Like
2

Yes. You could say Y to replace it.
I just had this update and everything went well.

$ pacman -Qi at-spi2-core
Name : at-spi2-core
Version : 2.46.0-2
Description : Protocol definitions and daemon for D-Bus at-spi
Architecture : x86_64
URL : https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/at-spi2-core
Licenses : GPL2
Groups : None
Provides : at-spi2-atk=2.46.0-2 atk=2.46.0-2 libatk-1.0.so=0-64 libatk-bridge-2.0.so=0-64 libatspi.so=0-64
Depends On : dbus glib2 libx11 libxml2 libxtst systemd
Optional Deps : dbus-broker: Alternative bus implementation
Required By : atkmm gtk2 gtk3 webkit2gtk webkit2gtk-4.1
Optional For : None
Conflicts With : at-spi2-atk<=2.38.0-2 atk<=2.38.0-2
Replaces : at-spi2-atk<=2.38.0-2 atk<=2.38.0-2
Installed Size : 3.87 MiB
Packager : Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) heftig@archlinux.org
Build Date : Sun 25 Sep 2022 08:24:52 PM CEST
Install Date : Tue 27 Sep 2022 09:55:24 AM CEST
Install Reason : Installed as a dependency for another package
Install Script : No
Validated By : Signature

2 Likes
3

Hi @RaptaG. You can find out about almost any package by using the Arch Package Search or AUR Package search.

at-spi2-atk 2.38.0-1

Architecture: x86_64
Repository: Extra
Description: A GTK+ module that bridges ATK to D-Bus at-spi

https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/at-spi2-atk/

2 Likes
4

Also you can see it Provides the old package stuff:

$ LANG=C pacman -Si at-spi2-core 
Repository      : extra
Name            : at-spi2-core
Version         : 2.46.0-2
Description     : Protocol definitions and daemon for D-Bus at-spi
Architecture    : x86_64
URL             : https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/at-spi2-core
Licenses        : GPL2
Groups          : None
Provides        : at-spi2-atk=2.46.0-2  atk=2.46.0-2  libatk-1.0.so=0-64  libatk-bridge-2.0.so=0-64  libatspi.so=0-64
Depends On      : dbus  glib2  libx11  libxml2  libxtst  systemd
Optional Deps   : dbus-broker: Alternative bus implementation
Conflicts With  : at-spi2-atk<=2.38.0-2  atk<=2.38.0-2
Replaces        : at-spi2-atk<=2.38.0-2  atk<=2.38.0-2
Download Size   : 566.16 KiB
Installed Size  : 3966.25 KiB
Packager        : Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) <heftig@archlinux.org>
Build Date      : Sun Sep 25 21:24:52 2022
Validated By    : MD5 Sum  SHA-256 Sum  Signature
3 Likes
5

So I say y right?

6

I’d say y.
And already did. :wink:

2 Likes
7

Y!

1 Like
8

It happens at times that an old package is replaced by a new, better one.
This looks like one of those cases.
So nothing magical about it. :wink:

2 Likes
9

Yes, marking [Y/n] typically means the normal answer would be yes (Y) because it is in upper case. And it is the default if you just press ENTER.

10

I had a bad experience with pacman conflicts, that’s why I asked, thanks!

11

I’m aware yes

1 Like
12

This is not really a conflict, but normal development. It simply shows what it is trying to do, and the expected answer is yes, unless you specifically have a reason to decline.

1 Like
13

Just shimming in to say you can just type yay and it’ll work the same as yay -Syu

1 Like
14

I said Yes to all those OP questions today, without any harm to my EnOS system at all. It also happened on Arch Linux, so it is just a package-replacement, that apparently does not do any harm. There is no mention of it on the Arch Linux news website, either.