Re: SAT based britney
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 19:03:35 +0530, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
It does.
> 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
code though...
Cheers,
Julien
Reply to: