| Summary: | ntfs3g - call for a solution to coexist nicely with ntfsprogs | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Antek Grzymała (antoszka) <antoni> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers> |
| Status: | VERIFIED INVALID | ||
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Antek Grzymała (antoszka)
2006-07-18 02:56:00 UTC
Read the fine changelog. ntfs3g-0.1_beta20070714.ebuild: Block against sys-fs/ntfsprogs since they both need to install the same headers. Yeah, I did in fact miss that one. Still, I think this isn't a valid solution. If the headers are really the same, then perhaps make ntfs3g require ntfsprogs (or the other way round), and have one of them install without the headers. Or have the ntfs3g headers in a directory of their own. Isn't it doable with a but if ebuild hacking? Antoni. Ebuilds that conflict with each also need to block each other. I don't see anything invalid about this solution. What I see invalid in this resolution is your lack of any good will to solve the problem. These two are packages that are obviously useful to have on a system and don't block one another in functionality (like for example ssmtp and postfix). There are possible solutions to this, like having the headers in a separate package, or perhaps one of the solutions I mentioned in my previous comments. You didn't even relate to these. Of course this bug can be treated as formally invalid, but it is a pledge for a better solution to the problem. Can't you see that? Today it has been relased ntfs3g 0.1_beta20070714-r1: this bug wasn't invalid :-) Thanks, so I thought. [a] |
