| 1 |
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:32:40 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:30:10 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:22:26 +0100 |
| 7 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:19:04 +0200 |
| 9 |
> > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:13:57 +0100 |
| 11 |
> > > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 12 |
> > > > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:07:00 +0200 |
| 13 |
> > > > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 14 |
> > > > > > > The best way to convince me is through valid |
| 15 |
> > > > > > > examples. |
| 16 |
> > > > > > |
| 17 |
> > > > > > It is also easier to be convinced when you try to understand |
| 18 |
> > > > > > and ask for clarifications instead of just rejecting without |
| 19 |
> > > > > > thinking :) |
| 20 |
> > > > > |
| 21 |
> > > > > The problem with this entire proposal is that it's still in |
| 22 |
> > > > > "well I can't think of how it could possibly go wrong" |
| 23 |
> > > > > territory. We need a formal proof that it's sound. History has |
| 24 |
> > > > > shown that if something can be abused by Gentoo developers, it |
| 25 |
> > > > > will be abused... |
| 26 |
> > > > |
| 27 |
> > > > Had you read the thread you would have noticed that I provided |
| 28 |
> > > > an algorithm giving sufficient conditions for the solver to |
| 29 |
> > > > work. That is, if developers pay attention to repoman |
| 30 |
> > > > warnings/errors, it will never fail. Obviously, since we're |
| 31 |
> > > > still in the SAT space, you can ignore the errors and make it |
| 32 |
> > > > fail, but it'll never be worse than what we currently |
| 33 |
> > > > have. |
| 34 |
> > > |
| 35 |
> > > You have shown that you produce a solution, not the solution |
| 36 |
> > > that's actually wanted. |
| 37 |
> > |
| 38 |
> > Since 'wanted' is still undefined, I'd say it produces the defined |
| 39 |
> > solution and you can adapt to the definition to get what you want. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> So you're saying that at the end of this, there's an ENFORCED_USE |
| 42 |
> solver that spits out some answer that may or may not be in any way a |
| 43 |
> sane solution to the conflict. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> I don't see how that's helpful to a user. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Define sane. |
| 49 |
The definition of the solver is made to change the least possible of |
| 50 |
the inputs and is completely and easily predictable by the person |
| 51 |
writing the constraint. That is something I would call sane. |
Archives