On 2013-05-12 11:48, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 15:28:44 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> If we do actually obtain this state where we can say that ">= standard" >> packages are always (co)installable in testing, it will open up some new >> possible ways of optimizing Britney. E.g. we would be able to answer >> "is_coinstallable(pkg1, pkg2)" with "yes" in O(1) for packages with >> priority ">= standard" (and "maybe" for others in O(1)). >> > I think making this assumption in britney's code would be a bad idea, > fwiw. A force-hint would let you break it, if nothing else, and it'd be > better if she noticed. > > Cheers, > Julien >
I wouldn't worry about that. Checking that the assumption is valid is a lot faster than checking co-installability in general[1]. I.e. we can verify the assumption holds before (ab)using it. ~Niels [1] Verification would probably be at the order of O(|V| * |E|). A full co-installability check is definitely worse than that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
