| 1 |
On 11/08/2014 11:39 PM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/08/2014 02:05 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I have a feeling that this is an assumption as well. PMS just says this |
| 4 |
>> is an 'any-of' group. There is not a single word about the processing |
| 5 |
>> order of these specs or which one to prefer, in which case some is |
| 6 |
>> better than the other and so on. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I think the two obvious algorithms are: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> A) If the user's resolver parameters request maximum upgrades, then the |
| 11 |
> resolver should choose the choice that results the most upgrades. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Neither the first nor the second dependency spec group in this example |
| 15 |
leads to an upgrade. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> B) If the user's resolver parameters request minimum change, then the |
| 18 |
> resolver should choose the choice which results in keeping the most |
| 19 |
> installed packages in place. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I don't know of any such switch in portage or paludis (I may be wrong, |
| 23 |
please point me to it unless you mean --nodeps). Whether I get minimum |
| 24 |
change is a side effect of other choices and hardly predictable, afais, no? |
Archives