Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Well, even in that case, you _eventually_ need to split up the universe > into actions/transactions/... or whatever the low-level package manager > calls them. For instance, in the full state you will always have some > (usually a lot) of the currently installed packages and you will > eventually need to recognize that you will not need to do anyhow with > them, because they are good as they are. I don't understand how is external solver is related to inner-tool actions. > Now, Eugene, would that make things harder for cupt? Yes, a bit. I will need to add yet another subroutine which produce the target system state from the external diff. > Otherwise stated, would you accept to "outsource" the computation of the > diff to the external solver? No. You however may choose any unambiguous protocol. The easiest for Cupt (and IMHO most natural) is the target system state. > If not, I can support a kind of protocol that I anticipated already: in > the "preamble: " of the request to the external solver we add a > "requested-format" or something such to choose among "new state" and > "diff" styles. Yes, I would like to have a way to request the target system state. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature