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

Re: RFC: implementation of package pools

On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 05:13:04AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >>> a Depends: b | c, d translates to  (~a | b | c) & (~a | d)
> >>> a Conflicts: b, c translates to (~a | ~b) & (~a | ~c)
> >>> a is install[ed] translates to "a"

Eray, if you want to help, help. If you want to randomly pester people,
do it to a lecturer who's actually paid to answer your questions.

The above translations are simple and automatable, the simplified form
you've decided to use may be equivalent, but it's not particularly
relevant to either the code or the original problem.

Yes, "a & (~a | b)" is the same as "a & b". No, that's not helpful in the
slightest for this problem.

And stop cc'ing me on every mail already.


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: pgpRx6wXmt8tU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: