>>>>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:23:14 -0400, David Golden <x...@xdg.me> said:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Andreas Koenig < > andreas.koenig.7os6v...@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote: > Maybe a better solution would be that the indexer would look at filename > conflicts, not at package name conflicts? > I'm not sure that would accomplish what we need. We want to use package name > conflicts because packages already have ownership/permissions and we want to > ensure that distribution names -- which are treated as unique identifiers by > things like RT -- get controlled using the same permission system. You're right, this can be argued as such. > This particular case seems like an unfortunate interaction between: > * case-insensitive package names (to avoid the File::stat, > File::Stat problem) correct > * distribution names having to match a package name for which the uploader has > permissions. No, the distro names are not relevant in this case. > If I understand correctly, the general public sees only 06perms, not the > underlying tables so understanding the scope of the problem is difficult. My > own quick scan of 06perms shows no case-conflicts (unless I did it > wrong). Correct, in perms I could leave the records untouched, they are not consulted. > How many case conflicts exist in the non-public tables? Maybe if the number is > small enough we can resolve them with a heuristic or arbitrary > decision. Good question. I'll find out asap. Not today, unfortunately. Thanks, -- andreas
