Re: [gentoo-dev] How well supported is collision-protect?

[Georgi Georgiev <chutz@gg3.net>]

maillog: 28/04/2005-08:10:49(-0400): Michael Cummings types
> Have to pipe up on this as I get at least a half dozen bugs a week...
> 
> On Wednesday 27 April 2005 08:29 pm, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > On a note, similar to the one about /usr/X11R6, I'd like to ask about
> > collision-protect.
> >
> > - How well is it expected to work?
> >
> Oh, it works, believe me, it works
> 
> > - Do you guys expect bug reports about packages with conflicting
> >   targets, with possible patches, etc?
> 
> Expect is a big word. Let's just say I'm a bad dev and don't follow the list 
> of new features in every release of portage (portage folks: i love ya, you 
> know that, doesn't mean I follow all the new feature flags and all), so my 
> introduction to collision-protect was when a half dozen bugs were filed one 
> rainy morning. Perl is in a collidable situation because we offer ebuilds 
> that supercede the modules that were installed with your version of perl (on 
> account of packages needing newer modules but not newer perl's) - we get hit 
> when the man pages go to merge. I'm hoping to alleviate (NOTE: not resolve) 
> some of this when we can do versioned virtuals, but until then I sympathize 
> with the bug posters and kindly ask them to disable collision protect until 
> the module is installed.

Isn't there a way to avoid installing the modules with perl and PDEPEND
on them instead?

-- 
()   Georgi Georgiev   () It has been said that Public Relations is    ()
()    chutz@gg3.net    () the art of winning friends and getting       ()
()  +81(90)2877-8845   () people under the influence. -- Jeremy        ()
() ------------------- () Tunstall                                     ()
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list