| 1 |
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 16:30:04 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> if you have the second dep installed |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Unfortunately the notion of "installed" is where most of the mess with |
| 6 |
|| dependencies comes from... |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
What about "not installed yet, but will be installed during this |
| 9 |
resolution"? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
What about "an earlier version is installed, and will be upgraded |
| 12 |
during this resolution"? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
What about "an earlier version is installed, and we weren't going to |
| 15 |
upgrade it, but we could"? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
What about "a version is installed, but with the wrong USE flags"? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
What about "a version in a different SLOT is installed"? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
What about "it's installed, and we want to upgrade it, but selecting |
| 22 |
this would lock us to an old version"? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Paludis has a *massive* list of scoring rules for these sorts of things |
| 25 |
to try to do "the right thing" most of the time. Unfortunately there |
| 26 |
are situations in the tree with identically-expressed dependencies |
| 27 |
where doing one thing is the "right" answer in one case, and the other |
| 28 |
thing is the "right" answer in the other. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
One small step towards sanity is to stop using ( ) and || ( ) when the |
| 31 |
intent is to select a single package and give a choice of how it's |
| 32 |
installed (even if it means new syntax). The second step is to abolish |
| 33 |
pretty much every use of ||. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives