Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 140888 - ntfs3g - call for a solution to coexist nicely with ntfsprogs
Summary: ntfs3g - call for a solution to coexist nicely with ntfsprogs
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Linux bug wranglers
Depends on:
Reported: 2006-07-18 02:56 UTC by Antek Grzymała (antoszka)
Modified: 2006-08-09 02:16 UTC (History)
0 users

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


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Antek Grzymała (antoszka) 2006-07-18 02:56:00 UTC
As in the summary: ntfs3g unnecesarily blocks ntfsprogs. I don't see why or for what reason. No file collision, no functionality conflict.
Comment 1 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-07-18 02:57:38 UTC
Read the fine changelog.
Comment 2 Antek Grzymała (antoszka) 2006-07-18 03:25:57 UTC
  Block against sys-fs/ntfsprogs since they both need to install the same

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?

Comment 3 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-07-18 03:47:44 UTC
Ebuilds that conflict with each also need to block each other. I don't see anything invalid about this solution.
Comment 4 Antek Grzymała (antoszka) 2006-07-18 04:02:46 UTC
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?
Comment 5 Fabio Rossi 2006-08-02 11:20:11 UTC
Today it has been relased ntfs3g 0.1_beta20070714-r1: this bug wasn't invalid :-)
Comment 6 Antek Grzymała (antoszka) 2006-08-09 02:16:58 UTC
Thanks, so I thought.