On Monday 18 of May 2009 16:52:19 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:47:52 +0300 [snip] > The definition of soft behaviour allows soft blockers to be treated > identically to hard blockers. We had to do it this way because > Portage's rules for soft blockers are too fuzzy and arbitrary to turn > into a formal specification -- they were a "code first, think later" > solution with which we can't do anything useful.
Not sure who is 'we' there, but Portage team already made is useful. Basic portage rule for soft-blocks behaviour is "no longer referenced (a'ka 'soft') blocked package can be uninstalled cleanly without user intervention" - it's well defined behaviour and possible subject of formal specification - it's just up to PM to implement block resolution algorithms for corner cases (those would not be the subject of formal specification of course, it's just an implementation detail like whether to apply rule like order set by '||' operator takes precedence over '!' block or order of block appearance in RDEPEND sets block precedence) - Zac did good job there saving users (especially KDE users) from nightmare of handling all package refactoring/blocks manually. -- regards MM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oryginalne przepisy na grilla. Zaskocz swoich gosci! Sprawdz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f217c
