Please add comments when unusual circumstances occur, such as when completely unrelated packages are blocked and the reason being 'file overwrites'. These bugs should probably also be reported upstream to the dmenu author as lrzsz package is quite old, making the dmenu author likely in need of renaming his lsx binary! Suggested patch adds a comment: --- dmenu-4.4.1.ebuild.orig 2011-11-26 18:09:27.799809745 -0900 +++ dmenu-4.4.1.ebuild 2011-11-26 18:10:13.894810229 -0900 @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ DEPEND="x11-libs/libX11 xinerama? ( x11-libs/libXinerama )" + +# This packages also install /usr/bin/lsx, conflicting with dmenu RDEPEND="${DEPEND} !app-misc/lsx !net-dialup/lrzsz" Reproducible: Always
This is for >= =x11-misc/dmenu-4.4.1 ebuilds.
net-dialup/lrzsz is a depend for the following packages: net-dialup/minicom app-misc/ckermit A question in my head, how can something like this have slipped into the dmenu package?
Well, it's pretty much settled at the developers' end. They are not renaming lsx, and it has been brought up in the past. http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1111/10248.html At this point, I suggest making the dmenu ebuild's rename the lsx binary to something other such as /usr/bin/dmenu-lsx or /usr/bin/dmenu_lsx. Renaming lsx will also entail renaming the occurances within /usr/bin/dmenu_run, and I believe this is the only place lsx is used. I'll try to hack-out a patch today if nobody else responds within the few hours or so.
Created attachment 293997 [details] dmenu-4.4.1-r1.ebuild # diff dmenu-4.4.1.ebuild dmenu-4.4.1-r1.ebuild 7c7 < inherit toolchain-funcs --- > inherit eutils toolchain-funcs 20,22d19 < RDEPEND="${DEPEND} < !app-misc/lsx < !net-dialup/lrzsz" 30a28,31 > > # Rename lsx to dmenu_lsx: See Bug #392045 > epatch "${FILESDIR}/dmenu-4.4.1-rename_lsx.patch" > epatch "${FILESDIR}/dmenu-4.4.1-rename_lsx-manpage.patch" 42c43,54 < emake DESTDIR="${D}" PREFIX="/usr" install --- > > insinto /usr/bin > dobin dmenu dmenu_run || die > > # Rename lsx to dmenu_lsx: See Bug #392045 > newbin lsx dmenu_lsx || die > > dodoc README || die > doman dmenu.1 || die > > # Rename lsx to dmenu_lsx: See Bug #392045 > newman lsx.1 dmenu_lsx.1
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 376675 ***
Created attachment 293999 [details, diff] dmenu-4.4.1-rename_lsx.patch Renames the call of the lsx binary from within the dmenu_run script to dmenu_lsx.
Created attachment 294003 [details, diff] dmenu-4.4.1-rename_lsx-manpage.patch Renames the the references to lsx to refer to dmenu_lsx. But keeping the surrounding LSX in within the four corners of the manpage to LSX, so people will have an idea of the original name of lsx.
The above patches drop the package conflicts with app-misc/lsx and net-dialup/lrzsz. Us DWM/DMenu users can once again install minicom &/or ckermit! My only gripe with this, I should have merged the two patches into one file. Let me know if it's preferred to merge and I'll resubmit the ebuild and patch files. As far as my changes, I really doubt anybody is going to have any issues with the renaming lsx to dmenu_lsx, as lsx is rarely - if ever - used by the end user. The dmenu binary is likely the only executable used by end users, even the manual pages are probably rarely, if ever, used -- but present.
Fixed in 4.4.1-r1. Thanks for reporting.
Comment on attachment 294003 [details, diff] dmenu-4.4.1-rename_lsx-manpage.patch Ah thanks, added something similar to the ebuild later on.
(In reply to comment #8) > The above patches drop the package conflicts with app-misc/lsx and > net-dialup/lrzsz. Us DWM/DMenu users can once again install minicom &/or > ckermit! > > My only gripe with this, I should have merged the two patches into one file. I went for sed magic instead.
Created attachment 294005 [details] dmenu-4.4.1-r1.ebuild Modified to use one patch file instead of two.
Created attachment 294009 [details] dmenu-4.4.1-rename_lsx.patch Modified the original to use one patch instead of two patch files.
ah. ok. then ignore my stuff then. Cheers!
Tested (my patches) on x86, dmenu & manpage dmenu_lsx seems stable/working.
*** Bug 401649 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***