[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: missing package conflicts

On Wednesday 16 April 2008 02:58:52 pm Ralf Treinen wrote:
> Hi,
> The following list contains packages that fail to install at the same time
> since one package tries to overwrite a file owned by the other package:
> http://edos.debian.net/missing-conflicts/
> In these package pairs, (at least) one of the two packages must declare
> a conflict with the other package.
> I will file bugs soon (hopefully before leaving on [VAC] on 18/4). One
> interesting question is: against which of the conflicting packages
> should the bug be filed? The less popular one according to popcon? The
> more recent one in the archive? The one with the more active
> maintainer?
> Here is how the clashes were detected:
> 1) generate from the Contents file a list of package pairs that contain
>    at least one common file.
> 2) use pkglab (one of the EDOS tools, debian packages are pending) to
> select from the list obtained in (1) those pairs of packages that are
> installable at the same time when looking only at dependency relationships.
> 3) try installing the packages obtained from (2) in a sid chroot.
> Some statistics for amd64/sid:
> - 2432104 files listed in the Contents file
> - 867 package pairs that contain at least one common file
> - 102 package pairs that contain at least one common file, and that are
>   co-installable according to the EDOS criteria
> - 27 package pairs that fail to install together due to attempted file
>   overwrite
> -Ralf.

I'd be interested in seeing how there can be 75 package pairs with shared file 
names which coinstall successfully.  In the case of a Replaces making that 
possible, I'd say that the package with files being replaced should usually 
have a bug report submitted to get those obsolete files removed.  On the 
other hand, if there's a diversion involved, that seems fine.
Daniel Schepler

Reply to: