On Wednesday 16 April 2008 02:58:52 pm Ralf Treinen wrote: > Hi, > > The following list contains packages that fail to install at the same time > since one package tries to overwrite a file owned by the other package: > > http://edos.debian.net/missing-conflicts/ > > In these package pairs, (at least) one of the two packages must declare > a conflict with the other package. > > I will file bugs soon (hopefully before leaving on [VAC] on 18/4). One > interesting question is: against which of the conflicting packages > should the bug be filed? The less popular one according to popcon? The > more recent one in the archive? The one with the more active > maintainer? > > Here is how the clashes were detected: > 1) generate from the Contents file a list of package pairs that contain > at least one common file. > 2) use pkglab (one of the EDOS tools, debian packages are pending) to > select from the list obtained in (1) those pairs of packages that are > installable at the same time when looking only at dependency relationships. > 3) try installing the packages obtained from (2) in a sid chroot. > > Some statistics for amd64/sid: > - 2432104 files listed in the Contents file > - 867 package pairs that contain at least one common file > - 102 package pairs that contain at least one common file, and that are > co-installable according to the EDOS criteria > - 27 package pairs that fail to install together due to attempted file > overwrite > > -Ralf.
I'd be interested in seeing how there can be 75 package pairs with shared file names which coinstall successfully. In the case of a Replaces making that possible, I'd say that the package with files being replaced should usually have a bug report submitted to get those obsolete files removed. On the other hand, if there's a diversion involved, that seems fine. -- Daniel Schepler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
