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
