|Summary:||Collision detection should run after pkg_preinst|
|Product:||Portage Development||Reporter:||James Le Cuirot <chewi>|
|Severity:||normal||CC:||denilsonsa, nao.nakashima, pacho|
|Package list:||Runtime testing required:||---|
|Bug Depends on:|
Description James Le Cuirot 2008-07-29 14:41:42 UTC
From what I can tell, collision detection currently runs before pkg_preinst. I am using pkg_preinst to remove what was previously a symlink and will now be a directory but despite this, collisions are still reported. I encountered this while working on jruby but I imagine it could happen elsewhere. I therefore think the collision detection should run after pkg_preinst.
Comment 1 Zac Medico 2008-07-29 15:00:26 UTC
We get this suggestion occasionally but it's simply not what pkg_preinst is designed for, and one of the features of collision-protect is that it prevents any modifications to the live filesystem (pkg_preinst is allowed to modify the live filesytem). Since pkg_preinst won't work, we'd have to introduce a different phase that has different characteristics (as part of an EAPI version bump).
Comment 2 James Le Cuirot 2008-07-29 15:47:55 UTC
*** Bug 233289 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 James Le Cuirot 2008-07-29 15:48:15 UTC
*** Bug 233291 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 James Le Cuirot 2008-07-29 16:00:38 UTC
I don't understand your point. What is the point of running collision-protect before pkg_preinst if it doesn't detect any "collisions" that may be caused by it?
Comment 5 Vlastimil Babka (Caster) (RETIRED) 2009-05-25 21:31:42 UTC
I think this is not a PMS bug, as grepping PMS for 'collision' finds nothing.
Comment 6 Zac Medico 2009-05-25 23:31:07 UTC
Rather than overload pkg_preinst, it should be a separate phase that's specifically for the purpose of resolving collisions.
Comment 7 Michał Górny 2014-09-06 21:47:30 UTC
Does anyone still want to work on this? I think COLLISION_IGNORE is 'good enough', and having extra phase just to work around this would be overkill. If someone does, please resume the discussion. Otherwise, WONTFIX.
Comment 8 James Le Cuirot 2014-09-06 22:00:40 UTC
I'm personally not fussed any more, my need for this has long passed.
Comment 9 Michał Górny 2015-11-21 13:04:57 UTC
Then closing it as no longer wanted. The overhead of adding a new phase for resolving collisions seems to be unwarranted, considering that simple COLLISION_IGNORE variable handles most of the cases and FEATURES=protect-owned even more.