| 1 |
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 19:56 +0200, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Matthias Langer wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 09:06 +0200, Rob C wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> >> Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a |
| 10 |
> >> weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are |
| 11 |
> >> not acting as you describe. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Can you provide some bug numbers to backup this claim? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Matthias |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I count 33 open collision bugs |
| 18 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=collision |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> and 21 of those reported by users with a non-gentoo email. |
| 21 |
> http://tinyurl.com/3x9yt2 |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Well, these are quite some bugs; however, at least the x86 arch team |
| 25 |
(can't speak for the others, but i think they do it the same way) always |
| 26 |
tests packages with "collision-protect". Since i'm an arch tester, i've |
| 27 |
never seen that a package where we found collisions went to stable, |
| 28 |
before these where fixed. Of course, we may have missed some collisions |
| 29 |
every now and then, as it is in practice not possible to *ensure* that a |
| 30 |
package has no collision with other packages. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
As for enabling "collision-protect" by default: I'm not sure if this is |
| 33 |
a good idea for now, as my experience is, that a significant part of the |
| 34 |
packages that fail with "collision-protect" do so because of stale |
| 35 |
files, that have been left around by (older versions of?) portage. As |
| 36 |
soon as this is no longer the case, enabling "collision-protect" by |
| 37 |
default sounds like a very good idea to me. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Matthias |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives