| 1 |
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:44:25 +0100 Róbert Čerňanský wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 18:33:45 +0300 |
| 3 |
> Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 14:45:51 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > The problem isn't the constants, though. The problem is the |
| 7 |
> > > resolution algorithm. There's not much point tweaking performance |
| 8 |
> > > until the resolver is fixed to produce a correct answer... |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Oh, this was discussed so many times already... There is NO single |
| 11 |
> > correct solution to such problems. And some mathematically correct |
| 12 |
> > solutions are impractical (e.g. half of the tree rebuild), so other |
| 13 |
> > ones which are good enough are preferred. As long as imperfect |
| 14 |
> > solution works fine, I'm ok with it. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> From my point of view it would do much help if portage resolves USE |
| 17 |
> dependencies automatically instead of telling the user to change USE |
| 18 |
> flags manually (I am talking about bug #258371). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
As the user the last thing I want is to have some USE flags changed |
| 21 |
without my permission ending up stuff I need to be omitted or stuff |
| 22 |
I don't want to see on my system to be installed. Of course if |
| 23 |
someone prefers USE flags to be randomly changed I don't mind if |
| 24 |
such option will exist (as proposed in bug #258371) as long as it |
| 25 |
is disabled by default. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives