| 1 |
On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:42, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:22:06 +0900 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > PackageA is installed, PackageB is installed, PackageB is |
| 6 |
> > uninstalled -> PackageA is broken. Does this case exist? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Found two on my system: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> * "/usr/lib/X11/app-defaults -> /etc/X11/app-defaults" is |
| 11 |
> installed by several X11 apps (media-gfx/xfig, x11-misc/seyon, |
| 12 |
> x11-misc/xvkbd, and i would not be surprised there are others) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This looks like something that a lower level X ebuild should be installing. |
| 15 |
The problem here is that there's also a bit of funny business going on when |
| 16 |
portage encounters a merge of some filetype being blocked by a different |
| 17 |
filetype. In the above case, if some X11 package installs |
| 18 |
the /usr/lib/X11/app-defaults symlink and all other apps install |
| 19 |
to /etc/X11/app-defaults then everything should be fine. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> * "/usr/share/cups/model/foomatic-ppds -> /usr/share/ppd" is |
| 22 |
> installed by both net-print/foomatic-db and net-print/hplip. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Again, given the name of the symlink, net-print/hplip should probably be |
| 25 |
installing directly to /usr/share/ppd. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Maybe this particular packages could be hacked to avoid need for |
| 28 |
> the symlinks (or the symlinks should be installed only by some |
| 29 |
> lower level, depended-on, packages?), but anyway it would be hard |
| 30 |
> to do a strict sanity check of the whole tree. And letting that to |
| 31 |
> "collision-protect" feature doesn't sound really like a short term |
| 32 |
> solution neither. So, basically, i don't see how you could safely |
| 33 |
> change this portage behavior atm (although i agree it would be a |
| 34 |
> good thing once done). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Yep, it seems that changing the behaviour will lead to some breakage. However |
| 37 |
repoman is definately not capable of handling this sort of stuff. Also, none |
| 38 |
of the breakage (that you've revealed here at least) is that bad. Putting the |
| 39 |
relevant collision-protect changes into ~arch and following up with the |
| 40 |
actual unmerge changes should lead to minimal disruption on the user's side. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives