On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 15:46 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 15. 02. 22 15:31, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 10:33 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > On 14. 02. 22 10:34, Michal Schorm wrote: > > > > The time had to come, when two packages would generate the same > > > > hash. > > > > > > > > I was hit by: > > > > --- > > > > Error: Transaction test error: > > > > file/usr/lib/.build- > > > > id/34/feaa549462e8818baa0629ce11da344465882b > > > > conflicts between attempted installs of discord-0.0.16- > > > > 1.fc35.x86_64 > > > > and skypeforlinux-8.79.0.95-1.x86_64 > > > > --- > > > > some time ago but since neither is a package maintained by > > > > Fedora > > > > Project maintainers, no one gave a damn about the core of the > > > > issue. > > > > That time, I got one of the apps as a Flatpak instead, but not > > > > all > > > > packages have such workarounds at hand. > > > > > > That's because they both ship the same electron binary. > > > > Right , so ? two package can't ship the same binary on Fedora ? > > I never said that. What I meant is that that problem is known and I > need to > help with a different problem. I was being ironic, I didn't want to say that either, sorry. But I think the root of the problem is the same, .build-id hash be the same is not a coincidence . Also we have old bug reports about .build-id hash conflicts , IIRC . Best regards, -- Sérgio M. B. _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
