[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: implementation of package pools



On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:52:53AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Checking the license is AI-complete. ;) 

Which is why we have a human do it.

> > Logic symbols are a solved problem: &, |, ~.
> > a Depends: b | c, d translates to  (~a | b | c) & (~a | d)
> > a Conflicts: b, c translates to (~a | ~b) & (~a | ~c)
> > a is installable translates to "a"

Correction: "a is installed translates to `a'", and "a is installable
is equivalent to -there exists a solution of the SAT problem where a
is true-"

> Well, there must be something wrong here since if I give a valuation 0
> to a then the two propositional sentences are satisfied trivially. Could you
> please review this? Let's not be mistaken.

Yes, you can solve all the depends and conflicts relations by not
having anything installed. Please spend a little time thinking about
this in future before posting.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark

Attachment: pgpMfOremll42.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: