>>> Completed installing reswrap-3.2.0 into /var/tmp/portage/reswrap-3.2.0/image/ man: gzipping man page: reswrap.1 strip: i686-pc-linux-gnu-strip --strip-unneeded usr/bin/reswrap * checking 2 files for package collisions existing file /usr/bin/reswrap is not owned by this package existing file /usr/share/man/man1/reswrap.1.gz is not owned by this package * spent 0.0708041191101 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-util/reswrap-3.2.0 NOT merged No package files given... Grabbing a set. >>> Regenerating /etc/ld.so.cache... ... # qfile /usr/bin/reswrap x11-libs/fox (/usr/bin/reswrap) # qfile /usr/share/man/man1/reswrap.1.gz x11-libs/fox (/usr/share/man/man1/reswrap.1.gz) ... Thanks. Rumen
@dberkholz - you've unmasked this. Colliding w/ its own dependencies is apparently not much fun. :/
*** Bug 144891 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
More fun: >>> Install fox-wrapper-1 into /var/tmp/portage/fox-wrapper-1/image/ category x11-libs >>> Completed installing fox-wrapper-1 into /var/tmp/portage/fox-wrapper-1/image/ man: * checking 2 files for package collisions existing file /usr/bin/fox-config is not owned by this package * spent 0.00161480903625 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 x11-libs/fox-wrapper-1 NOT merged No package files given... Grabbing a set. >>> Regenerating /etc/ld.so.cache... ... # qfile /usr/bin/fox-config x11-libs/fox (/usr/bin/fox-config)
This is the last time I believe rphillips when he says something's ready ...
Please check exactly which versions of fox it's colliding with. I'd bet you don't have the newest version of whatever series it is.
(In reply to comment #5) > Please check exactly which versions of fox it's colliding with. I'd bet you > don't have the newest version of whatever series it is. Well whatever version it is, most likely we need blockers set up for such case to force unmerge of old incompatible and colliding stuff.
You effectively can't do blockers with fox because portage doesn't support ranges. You'd need to individually block every single version and revision of fox that's ever been in the tree.
I don't think this bug is cleanly fixable. If someone comes up with a good solution, reopen and let me know.
(In reply to comment #7) > You effectively can't do blockers with fox because portage doesn't support > ranges. You'd need to individually block every single version and revision of > fox that's ever been in the tree. No so hard, actually. There haven't been so many. http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/x11-libs/fox/?hideattic=0 Anything that does _not_ inherit fox.eclass is incompatible, right? So: --- eclass/fox.eclass.orig 2005-07-11 17:35:37.000000000 +0200 +++ eclass/fox.eclass 2006-09-01 11:12:13.000000000 +0200 @@ -66,7 +66,15 @@ RESWRAP_DEP="dev-util/reswrap" fi -DEPEND="${DOXYGEN_DEP} +# These versions are not compatible with new fox layout +# and will cause collissions - we need to block them +INCOMPAT_DEP="!<x11-libs/fox-1.0.53 + !=x11-libs/fox-1.2.4 + !~x11-libs/fox-1.2.6 + !=x11-libs/fox-1.4.11" + +DEPEND="${INCOMPAT_DEP} + ${DOXYGEN_DEP} ${RESWRAP_DEP} =sys-devel/automake-1.4* >=sys-apps/sed-4"
Uhm, actually better replace = with ~ everywhere in case the old ones still will be getting some fixes.
Jakub, since you've got fixes, feel free to commit them.
thanks dberkholz, jakub. committed.
