| 1 |
On 02/29/04 Drake Wyrm wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, 2004-02-29, 16:15:46 +0100, in |
| 4 |
> <20040229161546.4bd04a74@××××××××××××××××××.net>, Marius Mauch |
| 5 |
> <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Two packages owning the same file is a bug, no matter if the file is |
| 7 |
> > CONFIG_PROTECTed or not. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Not so! try: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> equery belongs '^/usr$' |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Yes, '/usr' is a directory and, yes, I am arguing a straw man but... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> In many cases, two or more packages will use and provide a common |
| 16 |
> file. The bug, as I see it, is the fact that packages may clobber or |
| 17 |
> remove files which other packages need. Our current workaround is to |
| 18 |
> prevent any two packages from owning the same file. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> A better approach (and probably portage-ng material) would be cleaner |
| 21 |
> handling of shared files. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Our viewpoints may actually differ, so I will ask: How is it a bug if |
| 24 |
> two packages own the same file? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Because a package should not overwrite files owned by another package |
| 27 |
with it's own version that's probably completely different. There might |
| 28 |
be exceptions to my statement, but only if there is a really good reason |
| 29 |
and it has been triple-checked that it won't cause problems (and I can't |
| 30 |
think of a good reason right now). Also as you mentioned, at the moment |
| 31 |
portage will remove the file if unmerge the package that has installed |
| 32 |
the newest version of the file, likely breaking the other packages |
| 33 |
owning the file. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Marius |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 41 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives