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
> pa
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
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 comm
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.
chee
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-
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
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/commu
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 (m
8 matches
Mail list logo
