From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Heyb6-0004f3-9u for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:16:44 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3KJExaN013485; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:14:59 GMT Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3KJCu6a011084 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:12:57 GMT Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2007 19:12:56 -0000 Received: from chello080108115144.1.11.univie.teleweb.at (EHLO [192.168.0.102]) [80.108.115.144] by mail.gmx.net (mp053) with SMTP; 20 Apr 2007 21:12:56 +0200 X-Authenticated: #28563408 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18syEwO9xkslNDNicxS+t3gJmIrvOceB2wkjHFblH xPw6vgQxFL3N4Y Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: File collisions From: Matthias Langer To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4628FEE7.4050804@gentoo.org> References: <20070419140444.6b202c3b@luna.home> <1177089470.5954.3.camel@sputnik886.lnet> <4628FEE7.4050804@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:12:44 +0200 Message-Id: <1177096365.5954.46.camel@sputnik886.lnet> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Archives-Salt: cd0296df-0115-41d2-a7b3-9ac436d36f29 X-Archives-Hash: 3290351331ca2f95369e670397740e4e On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 19:56 +0200, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Matthias Langer wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 09:06 +0200, Rob C wrote: > > > > > >> Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a > >> weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are > >> not acting as you describe. > > > > Can you provide some bug numbers to backup this claim? > > > > Matthias > > I count 33 open collision bugs > http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=collision > > and 21 of those reported by users with a non-gentoo email. > http://tinyurl.com/3x9yt2 > Well, these are quite some bugs; however, at least the x86 arch team (can't speak for the others, but i think they do it the same way) always tests packages with "collision-protect". Since i'm an arch tester, i've never seen that a package where we found collisions went to stable, before these where fixed. Of course, we may have missed some collisions every now and then, as it is in practice not possible to *ensure* that a package has no collision with other packages. As for enabling "collision-protect" by default: I'm not sure if this is a good idea for now, as my experience is, that a significant part of the packages that fail with "collision-protect" do so because of stale files, that have been left around by (older versions of?) portage. As soon as this is no longer the case, enabling "collision-protect" by default sounds like a very good idea to me. Matthias -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list