Bugzilla Bug 163926

I have the latest x11-libs/gtksourceview installed (1.8.1), and dev-lang/boo
(0.7.6.2237) fails to merge due to a file collision:

# emerge dev-lang/boo

[...]

* checking 36 files for package collisions
existing file /usr/share/gtksourceview-1.0/language-specs/boo.lang is not owned
by this package
* spent 0.00652194023132 seconds checking for file collisions
* This package is blocked because it wants to overwrite
* files belonging to other packages (see messages above).
* If you have no clue what this is all about report it
* as a bug for this package on http://bugs.gentoo.org

package dev-lang/boo-0.7.6.2237 NOT merged

[...]

# equery b /usr/share/gtksourceview-1.0/language-specs/boo.lang
[ Searching for file(s) /usr/share/gtksourceview-1.0/language-specs/boo.lang in
*... ]
x11-libs/gtksourceview-1.8.1
(/usr/share/gtksourceview-1.0/language-specs/boo.lang)


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. emerge dev-lang/boo with x11-libs/gtksourceview already installed and
FEATURES=collision-protect

Actual Results:  
Collision on /usr/share/gtksourceview-1.0/language-specs/boo.lang

Expected Results:  
Successful emerge.

makes more sense to remove the one from boo itself and use the one distributed
with gtksourceview. Does upstream have an opinion about this?

It actually makes more sense to me to remove the one from gtksourceview.  It
seems unlikely to me that someone would want boo syntax highlighting without
actually wanting boo...

Vim handles this by having a zillion language syntax packages, which seems like
a poor solution.  logrotate handles this by having packages intall their own
logrotate files based on a logrotate use flag.

What does dotnet think?

I was actually thinking the opposite. If gtksourceview is now providing this,
then boo can stop doing it. Daniel, by that same token, who would want the
{perl,c,ada}.lang files if they're not going to use those? If we wanted to
break everything out like that, that's one thing, but just for boo doesn't seem
to make sense. We (boo) were only including the boo.lang file because it wasn't
in upstream.

I can easily provide a rev bump of the latest boo that doesn't include thet
.lang file, if folks like that.

In that case, go ahead and remove it from boo.  I didn't realise we'd added it
in the first place.  I'm all for whatever is easiest to maintain.

It looks like it got added to gtksourceview upstream right before the 1.7.1
release:
http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/gtksourceview/trunk/ChangeLog?rev=1088&view=markup

I'll try to get to removing it from the boo ebuild(s) this week some time.

Fixed in CVS, thanks