Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 656716 - sys-apps/portage: documentation should discourage use of collision-protect (use protect-owned instead)
Summary: sys-apps/portage: documentation should discourage use of collision-protect (u...
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: Portage Development
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Documentation (show other bugs)
Hardware: All All
: Normal normal (vote)
Assignee: Portage team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2018-05-27 20:51 UTC by Zac Medico
Modified: 2023-12-31 08:33 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Zac Medico gentoo-dev 2018-05-27 20:51:28 UTC
Since collision-protect makes harmless collisions fatal, the documentation should strongly discourage using it. The protect-owned feature is much more friendly, which is why protect-owned is enabled by default.
Comment 1 Duncan 2023-12-31 08:33:47 UTC
In fact, the current (portage-3.0.59) make.conf manpage says:

> collision-protect
> 
>> A QA-feature to ensure that a package doesn’t overwrite files it doesn’t own.
>> The COLLISION_IGNORE variable can be used to selectively disable this feature.
>> Also see the related protect-owned feature.

Nothing about recommended-or-not there.  But see protect-owned as suggested:

> protect-owned
> 
>> [...]
>> It is recommended to leave either protect-owned or collision-protect enabled
>> at all times, since otherwise file  collisions  between packages may result
>> in files being overwritten or uninstalled at inappropriate times.
>> If collision-protect is enabled then it takes precedence over protect-owned.

My read of that suggests AT LEAST ONE of the two is recommended, PREFERABLY BOTH, such that collision-protect can better protect the system as a whole under normal circumstances, but can be safely disabled when necessary for individual packages (as in the previously mentioned bug #883561) while still leaving at least some protection in-place during that exception due to protect-owned still being enabled.

And that's what I've had in place probably since protect-owned was introduced...

So if collision-protect really is negative-recommended now, the above manpage wording implying the opposite /really/ should be changed. =8^O

(Never-the-less, the un-recommend is unlikely to change my config choice, but like my -preserve-libs, -* @system and reverse-usrmerge to / instead of /usr, at least now I know my collision-protect doesn't follow current normal recommendations and that I should be prepared to deal with any repercussions of that now deliberate choice as they appear.)