| 1 |
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100 |
| 7 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200 |
| 9 |
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > > > But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in |
| 11 |
> > > > RDEPEND since they introduce conflicts? |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > You are missing a basic and important part of how dependency |
| 14 |
> > > resolution works: currently, cycles consisting purely of RDEPENDs |
| 15 |
> > > are ignorable. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > So, what do we lose? If PDEP comes 'ASAP' officially, I believe that |
| 18 |
> > we actually gain RDEPs which can be actually trusted. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> "ASAP" is a weaker guarantee that RDEPENDs currently have -- RDEPENDs |
| 21 |
> currently have the weakest guarantee necessary to ensure that they can |
| 22 |
> be trusted. It's also a useless guarantee, since "ASAP" can be |
| 23 |
> arbitrarily late. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
And can't RDEPENDs be arbitrarily late if there is a cycle? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
Archives