| 1 |
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:01:21 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100 |
| 8 |
> > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200 |
| 10 |
> > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 11 |
> > > > > But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in |
| 12 |
> > > > > RDEPEND since they introduce conflicts? |
| 13 |
> > > > |
| 14 |
> > > > You are missing a basic and important part of how dependency |
| 15 |
> > > > resolution works: currently, cycles consisting purely of |
| 16 |
> > > > RDEPENDs are ignorable. |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > So, what do we lose? If PDEP comes 'ASAP' officially, I believe |
| 19 |
> > > that we actually gain RDEPs which can be actually trusted. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > "ASAP" is a weaker guarantee that RDEPENDs currently have -- |
| 22 |
> > RDEPENDs currently have the weakest guarantee necessary to ensure |
| 23 |
> > that they can be trusted. It's also a useless guarantee, since |
| 24 |
> > "ASAP" can be arbitrarily late. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> And can't RDEPENDs be arbitrarily late if there is a cycle? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
No. RDEPENDs have to be available when a package is used to satisfy a |
| 29 |
dependency. That's the difference between an RDEPEND and a PDEPEND. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives