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

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

[Georgi Georgiev]

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?

- Do you guys expect bug reports about packages with conflicting
  targets, with possible patches, etc?

-- 
*>   Georgi Georgiev   *> You have a will that can be influenced by    *>
<*    chutz@gg3.net    <* all with whom you come in contact.           <*
*>  +81(90)2877-8845   *>                                              *>
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 27 April 2005 08:29 pm, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> - How well is it expected to work?

it's expected to work just fine

> - Do you guys expect bug reports about packages with conflicting
>   targets, with possible patches, etc?

yes
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Georgi Georgiev]

maillog: 27/04/2005-20:37:10(-0400): Mike Frysinger types
> On Wednesday 27 April 2005 08:29 pm, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > - How well is it expected to work?
> 
> it's expected to work just fine
> 
> > - Do you guys expect bug reports about packages with conflicting
> >   targets, with possible patches, etc?
> 
> yes

maillog: 27/04/2005-20:50:09(-0400): Hasan Khalil types
> 
> On Apr 27, 2005, at 20:29, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> >- How well is it expected to work?
> 
> We on Mac OS X use it (on our default profiles) to avoid overwriting  
> Apple-provided files and, so far, it's worked great.

Uh, I did not expect such a response. I personally have a whole bunch of
collisions on my system, most of which man pages.

http://gg3.net/~chutz/gentoo/collisions

I'll see to report them.

-- 
 /   Georgi Georgiev    / Academy: A modern school where football is    /
\     chutz@gg3.net    \  taught. Institute: An archaic school where   \
 /  +81(90)2877-8845    / football is not taught.                       /
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 27 April 2005 09:14 pm, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Uh, I did not expect such a response. I personally have a whole bunch of
> collisions on my system, most of which man pages.
>
> http://gg3.net/~chutz/gentoo/collisions
>
> I'll see to report them.

make sure they arent already fixed ... just glancing at the top list, a bunch 
are either already in bugzilla or resolved

also, there's the issue of SLOT based packages ... dont report those just 
yet ...
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 623 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 10:14 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Uh, I did not expect such a response. I personally have a whole bunch of
> collisions on my system, most of which man pages.
> 
> http://gg3.net/~chutz/gentoo/collisions
> 
> I'll see to report them.

My suggestion:

Make sure that you've installed fresh from 2005.0, as there were tons of
collisions caused by files from the older stage1 and stage2 tarballs
that have been fixed since 2005.0, where we changed how the stage
tarballs worked.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Rumen Yotov]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:

>On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 10:14 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>  
>
>>Uh, I did not expect such a response. I personally have a whole bunch of
>>collisions on my system, most of which man pages.
>>
>>http://gg3.net/~chutz/gentoo/collisions
>>
>>I'll see to report them.
>>    
>>
>
>My suggestion:
>
>Make sure that you've installed fresh from 2005.0, as there were tons of
>collisions caused by files from the older stage1 and stage2 tarballs
>that have been fixed since 2005.0, where we changed how the stage
>tarballs worked.
>
>  
>
Hi,
Can confirm that (much less collisons with 2005.0), but as there exist
some persistant collisions (nvidia-kernel, alsa-driver, some perl
modules, etc.) So i've put these in package.features/package.env file
(from Portage-Toys tools) to disable "collision-protect" just for them.
Also thinking about again begin using "maketest" and do the same for
failing packages, but not sure as there were quite a bit of packages
that didn't pass the "tests".
HTH. Rumen
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 28 April 2005 12:52 am, Rumen Yotov wrote:
> Also thinking about again begin using "maketest"

you mean "test" ... maketest was renamed a while ago ;)
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[R Hill]

Rumen Yotov wrote:
> Can confirm that (much less collisons with 2005.0), but as there exist
> some persistant collisions (nvidia-kernel, alsa-driver, some perl
> modules, etc.) So i've put these in package.features/package.env file
> (from Portage-Toys tools) to disable "collision-protect" just for them.
> Also thinking about again begin using "maketest" and do the same for
> failing packages, but not sure as there were quite a bit of packages
> that didn't pass the "tests".

If you do decide to start using the test feature, i've been using bug 
#73031 is a tracker for system packages (that is, packages included in 
'emerge system', not packages in category sys-...).  For world packages, 
you might get a thanks or you might get cussed at and your bug closed as 
invalid, depending on the maintainer.  Best to include patches.  ;P

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 668 bytes --]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:37:10 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday 27 April 2005 08:29 pm, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > - How well is it expected to work?
> 
> it's expected to work just fine

Most of the time. However, sometimes there are some issues (the xorg
move, perl modules manpages or portage compilation objects to name a
few) that can't be fixed really. That's why I don't think it will ever
be a default setting.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

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

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

[Alec Warner]

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

Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:37:10 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Wednesday 27 April 2005 08:29 pm, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>>
>>>- How well is it expected to work?
>>
>>it's expected to work just fine
> 
> 
> Most of the time. However, sometimes there are some issues (the xorg
> move, perl modules manpages or portage compilation objects to name a
> few) that can't be fixed really. That's why I don't think it will ever
> be a default setting.
> 
> Marius
> 
Perhaps there needs to be a ebuild setting for
RESTRICT="no-collision-protect"? :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=8EW2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Hasan Khalil]

On Apr 27, 2005, at 20:29, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> - How well is it expected to work?

We on Mac OS X use it (on our default profiles) to avoid overwriting  
Apple-provided files and, so far, it's worked great.

--

Hasan Khalil
eBuild and Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Michael Cummings]

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.

//mcummings
-- 
-----o()o---------------------------------------------
Michael Cummings   |    #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev    |    on irc.freenode.net 
-----o()o---------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Georgi Georgiev]

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