| 1 |
Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 4/22/20 11:58 AM, John Covici wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Yes, portage agrees with that statement, maybe I didn't give you the |
| 4 |
>> whole log, I thought it said that in there -- I did see that, I am |
| 5 |
>> sure. My question is how does this work normally, when you merge a |
| 6 |
>> package and update is this not always the case that there are files |
| 7 |
>> owned by the previous version on the system? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> Yeah, but the package manager knows which files are owned by the version |
| 10 |
> being replaced and it doesn't complain about those. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Correct. OP, a little more detail, someone correct me if I'm not clear |
| 16 |
enough here. If you install abc-1 with one set of files but the package |
| 17 |
is slotted and abc-2 is installed, portage knows what files are where |
| 18 |
and what version of the package they belong too. Thing is, this is |
| 19 |
different. Portage/emerge thinks those file belong to another package. |
| 20 |
Whether it is a different version or a package with a different name |
| 21 |
doesn't matter. Portage keeps a database of every file it installs and |
| 22 |
what package it belongs to, including version if slotted. When there is |
| 23 |
a clash, emerge detects that and spits out the message you see. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If you are certain that those files should be replaced and do not affect |
| 26 |
other packages, I'd either disable the protection with the FEATURES |
| 27 |
thingy or manually remove those files. Once you do that, |
| 28 |
update/re-emerge the package and test it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Dale |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
:-) :-) |
Archives