| 1 |
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:22:26 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:19:04 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:13:57 +0100 |
| 7 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:07:00 +0200 |
| 9 |
> > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > > > > The best way to convince me is through valid examples. |
| 11 |
> > > > |
| 12 |
> > > > It is also easier to be convinced when you try to understand and |
| 13 |
> > > > ask for clarifications instead of just rejecting without |
| 14 |
> > > > thinking :) |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > The problem with this entire proposal is that it's still in "well |
| 17 |
> > > I can't think of how it could possibly go wrong" territory. We |
| 18 |
> > > need a formal proof that it's sound. History has shown that if |
| 19 |
> > > something can be abused by Gentoo developers, it will be |
| 20 |
> > > abused... |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > Had you read the thread you would have noticed that I provided an |
| 23 |
> > algorithm giving sufficient conditions for the solver to work. That |
| 24 |
> > is, if developers pay attention to repoman warnings/errors, it will |
| 25 |
> > never fail. Obviously, since we're still in the SAT space, you can |
| 26 |
> > ignore the errors and make it fail, but it'll never be worse than |
| 27 |
> > what we currently have. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> You have shown that you produce a solution, not the solution that's |
| 30 |
> actually wanted. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Since 'wanted' is still undefined, I'd say it produces the defined |
| 34 |
solution and you can adapt to the definition to get what you want. |
Archives