On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:37:38PM +0200, Eugene V. Lyubimkin 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.
Sure it is not. My point is that the package manager will have _anyhow_
at some point to compute a sort of diff between the current state and
the one returned by the solver; hence it in fact make sense for the
solver to compute that diff for the solver.
> > 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.
OK, I'll then refine the protocol offering the two output formats.
BTW, it would be very helpful if the apt-get (I mean, plain old APT)
guys can voice their preferences on this: would you prefer a "new state"
style of output or a "diff" style of output?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature