extra/js52          52.7.3-1     52.7.3-2       0.00 MiB

error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
js52: /usr/lib/libmozjs-52.so.0 exists in filesystem
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.
sh-4.4# pacman -Qo /usr/lib/libmozjs-52.so.0 
error: No package owns /usr/lib/libmozjs-52.so.0
Not much of a problem, just moved it temporarily aside to make room for the new one.
But when looking for the owner it said none.
What it is required by (js52) is polkit ... but no owner? So who installs it?
So now I am a bit confused of dependencies that exist with no owner without being explicitly installed, and what is the correct pacman -R/-Q to locate them in a system. When this happened in my old installation I blamed myself, something I removed with just -R that left trash behind. When it happened to a fresh installation that I did yesterday it is when I went hunting.

No answer, because I am still learning arch

PS Unless it is from installing palemoon externally which I did to the new installation. This js52 is making me curious. Palemoon is the only browser installed since yesterday's installation, ever.
a good command to known : 
$ pactree js52
to know which package depends on js52 
$ pactree -r js52
I have been using pacman -Qo and pacman -Qi to untangle the spiderweb of ownership and dependency.
I still don't understand what the difference of owner is. If I want to install program A and it requires B, installs B as its dependency, who is the owner? I thought it would be A. If I install B, an explicit installation then A is not the owner but it still using the installed dependency. This matters when you remove A, whether B will stay or not. In this case I am confused because of js52
afaiui, ownership in this case, means : which files belongs to(is a part of) a given package.. so A owns its files and B owns its files..
what happened with js52 is possibly explained here: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/58459?string=js52
ie. the symlink /usr/ib/libmozjs-52.so.0 was created by another process (maybe "the symlink was created by "ldconfig.service".")
so wasn't owned by any package, let alone js52..
a packaging error that's now fixed :)

and this too: https://www.archlinux.org/news/js52-5273-2-upgrade-requires-intervention/

Powered by Obarun