On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 19:56 +0200, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Matthias Langer wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 09:06 +0200, Rob C wrote: > > > > > >> Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a > >> weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are > >> not acting as you describe. > > > > Can you provide some bug numbers to backup this claim? > > > > Matthias > > I count 33 open collision bugs > http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=collision > > and 21 of those reported by users with a non-gentoo email. > http://tinyurl.com/3x9yt2 >
Well, these are quite some bugs; however, at least the x86 arch team (can't speak for the others, but i think they do it the same way) always tests packages with "collision-protect". Since i'm an arch tester, i've never seen that a package where we found collisions went to stable, before these where fixed. Of course, we may have missed some collisions every now and then, as it is in practice not possible to *ensure* that a package has no collision with other packages. As for enabling "collision-protect" by default: I'm not sure if this is a good idea for now, as my experience is, that a significant part of the packages that fail with "collision-protect" do so because of stale files, that have been left around by (older versions of?) portage. As soon as this is no longer the case, enabling "collision-protect" by default sounds like a very good idea to me. Matthias -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
