| 1 |
Am 17.12.2010 17:37, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:27:05 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@×××.de> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Am 17.12.2010 16:25, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: |
| 5 |
>>> So would anyone be especially opposed to making "best leftmost" an |
| 6 |
>>> explicit requirement, enforced by repoman where possible (at least |
| 7 |
>>> for the >= / < case)? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Why can't the PM handle >= / < cases itself? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Because things are almost never as simple as 'just' >= / <. You can add |
| 12 |
> in clever trickery to deal with very specific cases, but the second |
| 13 |
> someone throws things off by adding in a use dependency or a third |
| 14 |
> package, things get weird. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I thought we were talking about the simplest case here, that is a list |
| 17 |
of atoms for the same cat/pkg. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Consider a variation on the original case: || ( <a-2 >=a-2[x] ) where |
| 21 |
> the user has specified -x for a. What should happen then? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> What about || ( <a-2[x] b >=a-2 ) ? Should that be rewritten in the same |
| 24 |
> way? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> What about || ( <a-2[x] ( >=a-2 b ) ) ? Should the package mangler be |
| 27 |
> clever enough to figure that one out too? What if b isn't already |
| 28 |
> installed there? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
What would repoman enforce here? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Which is really the problem: clever heuristics get extremely |
| 34 |
> complicated very quickly, and they're never enough. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Agreed. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Sebastian |
Archives