Hi guys. I am a newbie of bug-reporting. I don't know whether this is a bug, but I do believe it is a problem. I emerge 2 packages: one is powersave and the other is powermgmt-base. And I found there is one same file named "on_ac_power" appearing in the both packages simultaneously. So this file always be overidden by the latter merged one. "on_ac_power" is a binary in powersave and a shell script in powermgmt-base. I believe the usage of the two different and same name files is more or less same. But I don't like they have the same name and would be lost due to unmerging one of the both packages. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
I suggest you to emerge -C powersave for now. It is unmaintained and abandonened in favour of kpowersave/hal and will be removed sooner or later. Interesting thing is that pm-utils also contains this. I wonder how we should solve that.
(In reply to comment #1) > I suggest you to emerge -C powersave for now. It is unmaintained and > abandonened in favour of kpowersave/hal and will be removed sooner or later. > > Interesting thing is that pm-utils also contains this. I wonder how we should > solve that. > Hello, i've got this collision too, after the emerge of this morning. Maybe it will be useful for the end-users to block [B] the installation if powersave is not remove manually ?
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > I suggest you to emerge -C powersave for now. It is unmaintained and > > abandonened in favour of kpowersave/hal and will be removed sooner or later. > > > > Interesting thing is that pm-utils also contains this. I wonder how we should > > solve that. > > > > Hello, i've got this collision too, after the emerge of this morning. Maybe it > will be useful for the end-users to block [B] the installation if powersave is > not remove manually ? > PS : I've got only powermgmt-base-1.22 : is it safe to remove it too?
If the packages contain identical files, they should block each other. Can you say some more words about the state and future of the packages mentioned here? Which are deprecated? Shouldn't the Power Management Guide [1] be updated to reflect those changes<? [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/power-management-guide.xml
This isn't just from overlays. I'm testing the newer hal, which required sys-power/pm-utils, and I see this: * Detected file collision(s): * * /usr/bin/on_ac_power * /usr/share/man/man1/on_ac_power.1.bz2 ... as well as: $ equery b on_ac_power [ Searching for file(s) on_ac_power in *... ] sys-power/powermgmt-base-1.22 (/usr/bin/on_ac_power) sys-power/pm-utils-0.99.4 (/usr/bin/on_ac_power) So, while pm-utils is in ~ARCH for me, this issue is definitely in the tree proper.
(In reply to comment #5) > This isn't just from overlays. I'm testing the newer hal, which required > sys-power/pm-utils, and I see this: > * Detected file collision(s): > * > * /usr/bin/on_ac_power > * /usr/share/man/man1/on_ac_power.1.bz2 > ... as well as: > $ equery b on_ac_power > [ Searching for file(s) on_ac_power in *... ] > sys-power/powermgmt-base-1.22 (/usr/bin/on_ac_power) > sys-power/pm-utils-0.99.4 (/usr/bin/on_ac_power) > > So, while pm-utils is in ~ARCH for me, this issue is definitely in the tree > proper. > Confirm this on amd64. # portageq owners / /usr/bin/on_ac_power sys-power/pm-utils-0.99.4 /usr/bin/on_ac_power sys-power/powermgmt-base-1.22 /usr/bin/on_ac_power
*** Bug 204641 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I'm hitting this bug too. After searching on the web, this is how it was done in ubuntu for the pm-utils package [1]: + rm -f debian/pm-utils/usr/bin/on_ac_power + rm -f debian/pm-utils/usr/share/man/man1/on_ac_power.1 [1]: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/gutsy/+source/pm-utils/0.99.2-1
Created attachment 161131 [details, diff] pm-utils-0.99.4-collision.patch This patch applies to pm-utils-0.99.4.ebuild and removes the on_ac_power binary and on_ac_power.1 man page. This is working fine on my computer and solves this bug.
(In reply to comment #9) > Created an attachment (id=161131) [edit] > pm-utils-0.99.4-collision.patch > > This patch applies to pm-utils-0.99.4.ebuild and removes the on_ac_power binary > and on_ac_power.1 man page. > > This is working fine on my computer and solves this bug. > It works for amd64. Thank you.
(In reply to comment #10) > > It works for amd64. Thank you. > Sorry for my English: it works on amd64. Once again, thank you.
Please fix this one year old bug, pm-utils-0.99.4 (stable on tree) is affected by this
This bug raises up here too: phantom ~ # portageq owners / /usr/bin/on_ac_power sys-power/powermgmt-base-1.22 /usr/bin/on_ac_power sys-power/pm-utils-0.99.4 /usr/bin/on_ac_power phantom ~ # eix sys-power/powermgmt-base$ [I] sys-power/powermgmt-base Available versions: 1.21 1.22 Installed versions: 1.22(15:59:04 04/11/06) Homepage: http://packages.debian.org/testing/utils/powermgmt-base Description: Script to test whether computer is running on AC power phantom ~ # eix sys-power/pm-utils$ [I] sys-power/pm-utils Available versions: 0.99.4 ~1.1.1 ~1.1.2.1 {alsa debug networkmanager ntp video_cards_i810 video_cards_radeon} Installed versions: 0.99.4(18:17:48 29/07/08)(-debug) Homepage: http://pm-utils.freedesktop.org/ Description: Suspend and hibernation utilties for HAL (x86; eix db is up2date)
I'm not sure how I've got sys-power/powermgmt-base in my "world" file, but it seems I don't need it, so the following (suggested by comment #1) worked fine for me: emerge -C sys-power/powermgmt-base emerge -1 pm-utils
*** Bug 233374 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #14) > emerge -C sys-power/powermgmt-base > emerge -1 pm-utils > But here pwermgmt-base is a dep of apmd which is a dep of gnome-applett (with use: apm). This really should be fix, though I don't know how.
pm-utils vs. powermgmt-base has been handled by adding blockers. powersave is not in tree afaics, other considerations needs another bug to avoid confusion. Thanks for reporting.
If you're still having issues re:powermgmt-base & pm-utils, you may wish to jump onto bug #255249
