[gentoo-dev] RFC: Alternative names for binaries in app-text/cook and dev-util/cook

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Alternative names for binaries in app-text/cook and dev-util/cook

[Karl Trygve Kalleberg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 284 bytes --]

Hi Gentoonies.

Both app-text/cook and dev-util/cook install the binary /usr/bin/cook. This is
of course less than ideal.

Unless somebody have ideas/objections, I will rename the binary for
app-text/cook to cookp, as it's mainly targeted as a macro processor.

Kind regards,

Karl T

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Alternative names for binaries in app-text/cook and dev-util/cook

[Barry Shaw]

Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote:
> Hi Gentoonies.
> 
> Both app-text/cook and dev-util/cook install the binary /usr/bin/cook. This is
> of course less than ideal.
> 

I thought that all of the ebuilds in portage were supposed to have 
unique package names.  I seem to recall reading this somewhere in the 
gentoo docs but I have been unable to find it again.

The reason that I mention this is that it causes lots of problems when 
using binary packaging as portage keeps all of the binaries in 
/usr/portage/packages/All.  The binaries in this directory are named 
solely after their package name (there is no category name information) 
and in the (unlikely) event that two such packages have identical 
version numbers, one would end up over writing the other.

I've noticed a number of packages with identical names, particularly in 
the app-xemacs and app-emacs categories.  I can supply a list of the 
name clashes that I have encountered if required.

Baz





--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Alternative names for binaries in app-text/cook and dev-util/cook

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 686 bytes --]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:50:48 +1200 Barry Shaw <baz@scms.waikato.ac.nz>
wrote:
| Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote:
| > Hi Gentoonies.
| > 
| > Both app-text/cook and dev-util/cook install the binary
| > /usr/bin/cook. This is of course less than ideal.
| > 
| 
| I thought that all of the ebuilds in portage were supposed to have 
| unique package names.  I seem to recall reading this somewhere in the 
| gentoo docs but I have been unable to find it again.

Not really. That's why we have categories.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh, Gentoo XMLcracy Member G03X276
(Sparc, MIPS, Vim, si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes)
Mail:    ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web:     http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Alternative names for binaries in app-text/cook and dev-util/cook

[Karl Trygve Kalleberg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 709 bytes --]

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 
> unique package names.  I seem to recall reading this somewhere in the 
> 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Alternative names for binaries in app-text/cook and dev-util/cook

[Barry Shaw]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote:
| On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:50:48PM +1200, Barry Shaw wrote:
|
| 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.
|

We've implemented a binary distribution and maintenance system and in
the process have found a number of problems like this with portage and
binaries.  What would be the appropriate forum to mention these problems
in (gentoo-portage-dev maybe?).

Thanks
Baz



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAqTFOJvZkjpKMF2wRAvBzAJ47Z1qy4fNaPxE8ruhtwY/fXncaGgCguIcX
oPz3Aer6cfpaAt8fUeNjw1E=
=ugCy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Alternative names for binaries in app-text/cook and dev-util/cook

[Jason Stubbs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 18 May 2004 06:40, Barry Shaw wrote:
> We've implemented a binary distribution and maintenance system and in
> the process have found a number of problems like this with portage and
> binaries.  What would be the appropriate forum to mention these problems
> in (gentoo-portage-dev maybe?).

bugs.gentoo.org, but make sure to search first.

Regards,
Jason Stubbs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBQKmQgVoikN4/5jfsAQK9VwP/TbC+AJk/1v+pKcNHAQIuCb0uCP0297RU
K5V5KfWDdMY8Y4javhz044RjgLpYqp9ozh0E0rToRVesV4vm9oBTx2xyAsIruTit
oH5YYgHbTNTTv+HedTKd9rm+aquWVD9AntmpsRAp8dszmF8Bb6EKBYVozEHXLH4E
zzF1K79122s=
=ua/3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list