We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
was asked by Tracy at forum to report this bug. it's pretty harmless.
sudo eopkg check flatpak Checking integrity of flatpak Broken Corrupted file: /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/flatpak.conf
I say it's harmless because I was able search and install with flatpak. Maybe it's something benign?
sudo eopkg check flatpak
Checking integrity of flatpak OK
Checking integrity of flatpak Broken Corrupted file: /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/flatpak.conf
Shannon (stable)
Budgie
budgie, solus, 10.8.2 updated the night of 12/15/2023 woke up, rebooted, and filing this report the morning of 12/16/2023
a full eopkg check revealed, for me, this was the only broken package
eopkg check
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
forgot to add a handful of people who updated did corroborate this, too. see last 10 posts or so https://discuss.getsol.us/d/10070-sync-updates-for-week-50-2023/9
Sorry, something went wrong.
That's because flatpak now includes its own tmpfiles.d config, while our package recipe has a custom config from way back when. The former copies to /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/ and gets recorded in the package metadata, while the latter copies to /usr/lib64/tmpfiles.d/, also recorded in the metadata. That ends up being the same location though, and only the latter remains on a real installation.
/usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/
/usr/lib64/tmpfiles.d/
652e5d7
flatpak: Fix duplicate tmpfiles
bfbc447
Closes #1035 Signed-off-by: Reilly Brogan <reilly@reillybrogan.com>
No branches or pull requests
Summary
was asked by Tracy at forum to report this bug. it's pretty harmless.
I say it's harmless because I was able search and install with flatpak. Maybe it's something benign?
Steps to reproduce
sudo eopkg check flatpak
Expected result
Checking integrity of flatpak OK
Actual result
Environment
Repo
Shannon (stable)
Desktop Environment
Budgie
System details
budgie, solus, 10.8.2
updated the night of 12/15/2023
woke up, rebooted, and filing this report the morning of 12/16/2023
Other comments
a full
eopkg check
revealed, for me, this was the only broken packageThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: