1 |
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200 |
2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100 |
4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200 |
6 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > > But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in RDEPEND |
8 |
> > > since they introduce conflicts? |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > You are missing a basic and important part of how dependency |
11 |
> > resolution works: currently, cycles consisting purely of RDEPENDs |
12 |
> > are ignorable. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> So, what do we lose? If PDEP comes 'ASAP' officially, I believe that |
15 |
> we actually gain RDEPs which can be actually trusted. |
16 |
|
17 |
"ASAP" is a weaker guarantee that RDEPENDs currently have -- RDEPENDs |
18 |
currently have the weakest guarantee necessary to ensure that they can |
19 |
be trusted. It's also a useless guarantee, since "ASAP" can be |
20 |
arbitrarily late. |
21 |
|
22 |
-- |
23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |