| 1 |
On 01/23/2018 03:11 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm starting to be a bit sad about this for a couple of reasons. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> 1) dep_zapdeps is pretty big at this point, and every tweak for || () |
| 5 |
> just grows it. Do we have any idea: |
| 6 |
> a) When dep_zapdeps will be 'done'? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
We're gradually approaching a point were it can't be improved much more, |
| 9 |
without major refactoring. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> b) Plans for splitting it into more manageable pieces? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The next step is to evaluate the overlapping || deps for multiple |
| 14 |
packages at the same time, using DNF. That will be a good time for |
| 15 |
refactoring. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> 2) In general I worry that the logic for || () will essentially never be |
| 18 |
> complete, and we will be forced to tweak the implementation forever as |
| 19 |
> cases arise where the algorithm fails to compute the 'right' answer. |
| 20 |
> I'm a bit curious what 'right' even is anymore. The devmanual doesn't |
| 21 |
> really describe how any-of dependencies are resolved and so the changes |
| 22 |
> seem rather arbitrary. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The 'right' answer is optimal in the sense that it: |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
1) Installs the minimum number of packages necessary |
| 27 |
2) Upgrades all packages to the latest version possible |
| 28 |
3) Prefers choices toward the left when there's no overriding reason to |
| 29 |
do otherwise (1 or 2 above) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> I am not worried about specific changes (like |
| 32 |
> this one) but the fact that we continually apply changes to make the |
| 33 |
> 'right' thing happen is the larger concern. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I'd worried if we didn't have unit tests which prove that it's behaving |
| 36 |
optimally for that cases that it's designed to handle. It's gradually |
| 37 |
approaching the point where we can't change the behavior much without |
| 38 |
making it behave sub-optimally for some of our existing test cases. |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Thanks, |
| 41 |
Zac |
Archives