On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:11:11 -0500 (EST) "Benjamin R. Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote: > So, that's all in order... Except, I can't quite recall the > rationale for why "collision-protect" is a broken concept. What's > the cleaner alternative mechanism that avoids the problem of a > package overwriting an unrelated package's binary?
There are entirely legitimate reasons for having two or more packages temporarily own the same file. All collision-protect does is force developers to use horrible and convoluted blockers that confuse the heck out of users. Collision protection is only viable if it's done with a mechanism for ignoring non-problematic collisions. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ paludis-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pioto.org/mailman/listinfo/paludis-user
