Re: SAT based britney
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 19:03:35 +0530, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Montag, den 16.05.2011, 11:44 +0200 schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
> > On Sun, 15 May 2011, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > And in
> > > the absence of conflicts, this means that A and B are co-installable.
> > Yes, but what about this, T is the package we're considering to migrate.
> > T depends on A, B
> > A depends on D1 | D2
> > B depends on D2 | D3
> > D1 conflicts with D3
> > D2 is not satisfiable/installable in testing (but is in unstable)
> > D1 is installable alone in testing
> > D3 is installable alone in testing
> > That said, I don't know if the current britney would detect anything wrong
> > here either.
> There is a conflict, so I’m not claiming to handle this perfectly. I
> hope such cases are rare. And note that my system allows for manual
> addition of rules, so if we come across situations that are treated
> insufficiently, and such situations are rare enough, additional
> constraints can be added by the RM team. E.g. in this case, after some
> thought, the additional constraint "T implies D2" should be sufficient.
Not sure I'd want to replace one manual task (adding hints for packages
which need to migrate together) with another (handling conflicts). I
have no precise idea how common that situation is; I fear it's more
common than you seem to think.
I like the part where we wouldn't have to keep maintaining much of this