From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2331 invoked from network); 17 May 2004 20:32:44 +0000 Received: from toucan.ussg.indiana.edu (HELO smtp.gentoo.org) (156.56.111.197) by eagle.gentoo.oregonstate.edu with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 17 May 2004 20:32:44 +0000 Received: from newton.random-chaos.org.uk ([195.82.107.148]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BPnbM-00086K-TR for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 19:16:43 +0000 Received: from eagle.gentoo.oregonstate.edu ([128.193.0.34] helo=eagle.gentoo.org) by newton.random-chaos.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.21) id 1BPdmk-0000RC-CC for arch-gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 09:47:46 +0100 Received: (qmail 28800 invoked by uid 50004); 17 May 2004 09:21:36 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 6085 invoked from network); 17 May 2004 09:21:36 +0000 Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:21:28 +0200 From: Karl Trygve Kalleberg To: Barry Shaw Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <20040517092128.GF7079@gentoo.org> References: <20040514021143.GU26837@gentoo.org> <40A45028.5040700@scms.waikato.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kfjH4zxOES6UT95V" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40A45028.5040700@scms.waikato.ac.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: Karl Trygve Kalleberg Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Alternative names for binaries in app-text/cook and dev-util/cook X-Archives-Salt: 6c24cbf8-7847-4c5a-b115-6e30d72c15d1 X-Archives-Hash: ad7f13c9f27121acbd163bef6cce6581 --kfjH4zxOES6UT95V Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:50:48PM +1200, Barry Shaw wrote: > I thought that all of the ebuilds in portage were supposed to have=20 > unique package names. I seem to recall reading this somewhere in the=20 > gentoo docs but I have been unable to find it again. This is not correct. Identical package names are okay. Identical installed files are not. The name clashes that happen in /usr/portage/packages/All are a side effect of the current implementation of the binary package system, and is in, imho, very unfortunate. However, two identically named packages in different categories are seldom = at the same version, so there shouldn't be any overwriting of tbz2s. Kind regards, Karl T --kfjH4zxOES6UT95V Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAqIQYkvv4V9zefggRAn6EAKDbKzrade8r1n9UDHNBmSMWBg0JJACgt8mT PM8zXDXaOBGrONoTbJPdFs8= =mQYI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kfjH4zxOES6UT95V--