[gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24

[gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24

[Joseph]

It seems to me new portage-2.1.9.24 doesn't like quickpkg, it complains:

Installing (1 of 1) sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24
  * This package will overwrite one or more files that may belong to other
  * packages (see list below). You can use a command such as `portageq
  * owners / <filename>` to identify the installed package that owns a
  * file. If portageq reports that only one package owns a file then do
  * NOT file a bug report. A bug report is only useful if it identifies at
  * least two or more packages that are known to install the same file(s).
  * If a collision occurs and you can not explain where the file came from
  * then you should simply ignore the collision since there is not enough
  * information to determine if a real problem exists. Please do NOT file
  * a bug report at http://bugs.gentoo.org unless you report exactly which
  * two packages install the same file(s). Once again, please do NOT file
  * a bug report unless you have completely understood the above message.
  *
  * package sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 NOT merged
  *
  * Detected file collision(s):
  *
  *      /usr/bin/quickpkg

Should I remove the quickpkg to install new portage or comment-out "collision-protect" in make.conf?

-- 
Joseph

Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24

[Adam Carter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 439 bytes --]

>   * package sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 NOT merged
>  *
>  * Detected file collision(s):
>  *
>  *      /usr/bin/quickpkg
>
> Should I remove the quickpkg to install new portage or comment-out
> "collision-protect" in make.conf?
>
> I just ran the same update (and it reported it was going ahead with the
update despite the collision). Looks like quickpkg is now in portage;

# qfile /usr/bin/quickpkg
sys-apps/portage (/usr/bin/quickpkg)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 683 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 07:47 on Saturday 27 November 2010, Joseph did 
opine thusly:

> It seems to me new portage-2.1.9.24 doesn't like quickpkg, it complains:
> 
> Installing (1 of 1) sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24
>   * This package will overwrite one or more files that may belong to other
>   * packages (see list below). You can use a command such as `portageq
>   * owners / <filename>` to identify the installed package that owns a
>   * file. If portageq reports that only one package owns a file then do
>   * NOT file a bug report. A bug report is only useful if it identifies at
>   * least two or more packages that are known to install the same file(s).
>   * If a collision occurs and you can not explain where the file came from
>   * then you should simply ignore the collision since there is not enough
>   * information to determine if a real problem exists. Please do NOT file
>   * a bug report at http://bugs.gentoo.org unless you report exactly which
>   * two packages install the same file(s). Once again, please do NOT file
>   * a bug report unless you have completely understood the above message.
>   *
>   * package sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 NOT merged
>   *
>   * Detected file collision(s):
>   *
>   *      /usr/bin/quickpkg
> 
> Should I remove the quickpkg to install new portage or comment-out
> "collision-protect" in make.conf?


You should do neither. You should do what the message says, which is to find 
out why you have a collision and then resolve it. You must definitely not 
remove collision-protect from FEATURES

equery belongs /usr/bin/quickpkg

and then make a decision when you have that answer. Adam's later advice is 
correct.



-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24

[Joseph]

On 11/27/10 17:51, Adam Carter wrote:
>>   * package sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 NOT merged
>>  *
>>  * Detected file collision(s):
>>  *
>>  *      /usr/bin/quickpkg
>>
>> Should I remove the quickpkg to install new portage or comment-out
>> "collision-protect" in make.conf?
>>
>> I just ran the same update (and it reported it was going ahead with the
>update despite the collision). Looks like quickpkg is now in portage;
>
># qfile /usr/bin/quickpkg
>sys-apps/portage (/usr/bin/quickpkg)

I just "--sync" and it stopping at the same place :-/
Detected file collision(s):
    /usr/bin/quickpkg

-- 
Joseph

Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 18:46 on Saturday 27 November 2010, Joseph did 
opine thusly:

> On 11/27/10 17:51, Adam Carter wrote:
> >>   * package sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 NOT merged
> >>  
> >>  *
> >>  * Detected file collision(s):
> >>  *
> >>  *      /usr/bin/quickpkg
> >> 
> >> Should I remove the quickpkg to install new portage or comment-out
> >> "collision-protect" in make.conf?
> >> 
> >> I just ran the same update (and it reported it was going ahead with the
> >
> >update despite the collision). Looks like quickpkg is now in portage;
> >
> ># qfile /usr/bin/quickpkg
> >sys-apps/portage (/usr/bin/quickpkg)
> 
> I just "--sync" and it stopping at the same place :-/
> Detected file collision(s):
>     /usr/bin/quickpkg


You didn't do anything about the collision, so it's still happening.



Read the portage man pages to gain an understanding of how portage works and 
what --sync updates (it will not fix your problem)

Some package installed /usr/bin/quickpkg, now portage wants to install it. 
Presumably, the old package is now part of portage itself.

Anyway, while that binary is there portage is not going to install itself. 
This is a good thing and you do not ever want to disable it.

So sit quietly for a moment and figure out why you need to delete 
/usr/bin/quickpkg, then do so and emerge portage. This time it will work.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24

[Philip Webb]

Just for info, on my 64-bit system I just updated Portage w/o any problem:

  root:525 etc> equery belongs /usr/bin/quickpkg
    [ Searching for file(s) /usr/bin/quickpkg in *... ]
    sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 (/usr/bin/quickpkg -> ../lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg)
  root:526 etc> ls -l /usr/bin/quickpkg
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 2010-11-27 14:23 /usr/bin/quickpkg -> ../lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg
  root:527 etc> equery belongs /usr/lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg
    [ Searching for file(s) /usr/lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg in *... ]
    sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 (/usr/lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg)
  root:528 etc> ls -l /usr/lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 9224 2010-11-27 14:23 /usr/lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg

I've never set 'collision-protect' in  make.conf ,
but have never run into a problem as a result.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user][SOLVED] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24

[Joseph]

On 11/27/10 21:45, Alan McKinnon wrote:

[snip]
>> >> I just ran the same update (and it reported it was going ahead with the
>> >
>> >update despite the collision). Looks like quickpkg is now in portage;
>> >
>> ># qfile /usr/bin/quickpkg
>> >sys-apps/portage (/usr/bin/quickpkg)
>>
>> I just "--sync" and it stopping at the same place :-/
>> Detected file collision(s):
>>     /usr/bin/quickpkg
>
>
>You didn't do anything about the collision, so it's still happening.
>
>
>
>Read the portage man pages to gain an understanding of how portage works and
>what --sync updates (it will not fix your problem)
>
>Some package installed /usr/bin/quickpkg, now portage wants to install it.
>Presumably, the old package is now part of portage itself.
>
>Anyway, while that binary is there portage is not going to install itself.
>This is a good thing and you do not ever want to disable it.
>
>So sit quietly for a moment and figure out why you need to delete
>/usr/bin/quickpkg, then do so and emerge portage. This time it will work.
>
>
>--
>alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

SOLVED!
Removing the link solves the problem. New portage will re-create the link.

-- 
Joseph