On 10/09/20 5:11 am, Javier via arch-general wrote:
Usually that get fixed by using "--overwrite /usr/sbin". But I find it wrong for
tigervnc to own "/usr/sbin", so I think in this case tigervnc is not right. Would this
be the case, or it's OK for tigervnc to be the owner and then to overwrite?
Thanks !
With due respect to all developers and package maintainers, I think Arch
needs to have policy that maintainer must be using the package they
maintain.
This will make sure that they dont simply bump the pkgver / pkgrel and
release untested package.
This bug can create a disaster for someone, if person blindly tries a
regular fix to such problems i.e. --overwrite usr/sbin. Their whole
system would crash as there will be no symlink to usr/bin and many
executables would go missing. And probably will not boot.
Amish.
