Collision Protection: which files are ok??

BennyP · Last edited by BennyP on Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:34 am; edited 2 times in total

I can't use the FEATURE="-collision-protect" option when emerging.
Because it's supposed to read

blubbfisch

BennyP · Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:58 am Post subject:

Thank you!
_________________
Could it be?

JoseJX · Retired Dev Joined: 28 Apr 2002 Posts: 2774

You shouldn't overwrite the coreutils, there are some differences between the GNU utils that the coreutils build installs and the BSD utils that come with OSX. You will probably need to replace uname if you've already forced coreutils to install. A new version of coreutils has been written that addresses the problems with the existing ebuild. Remember that collision-protect is to protect you from messing up your existing OSX install. If you're comfortable with potentially messing things up really badly, then turn it off, but if you're not sure, it's best to leave it on and report broken packages.

onkelfusspilz · Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:45 pm Post subject:

Hi JoseJX,

you say it's not a good idea of disabling collision-protection and I think you're right since I wrecked up my system unbootable overwriting coreutils.
But I don't see a way living with collision-protection enabled since I was not able to emerge any package cleanly (I tried vim, nano, mc, nmap and some more) because of file-collision.

The point is that you say it is the best way to report this packages as broken, but is this really the golden way if we look some month's in the future?
Please think about this situation: A Apple security update replaces several system-files, and maybe overwrites some files installed with portage before the security update. I think this may couse some of these problems:
1.) The package installed by portage does'nt work anymore (another version overwrites our lib or s.l.t.).
2.) A update with portage will kill the updated version from apple, so the system-programs may run into problems
3.) A re-emerge is not possible anymore because the "fix" who was added to the package since it was marked as "broken" by our report doesn't handle the newer file-versions.

Sorry don't get me wrong but I really don't know how to handle this and I don't believe that it is possible to share the root-fs with two distributions who don't know anything about each other. In my example it is only a security update of some files but what if we change to MacOSX 10.4 or 10.5 or whatever the future brings in?

So do I stuck in the middle and get it wrong or is the situation so unclear as I see it?

I think portage is intended for MacOSX package handling because of it's ebuild architecture, but I don't see a chance in sharing the root-fs. How do you see the situation?

Thank you