On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200 > Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200 > > > Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in > > > > RDEPEND since they introduce conflicts? > > > > > > You are missing a basic and important part of how dependency > > > resolution works: currently, cycles consisting purely of RDEPENDs > > > are ignorable. > > > > So, what do we lose? If PDEP comes 'ASAP' officially, I believe that > > we actually gain RDEPs which can be actually trusted. > > "ASAP" is a weaker guarantee that RDEPENDs currently have -- RDEPENDs > currently have the weakest guarantee necessary to ensure that they can > be trusted. It's also a useless guarantee, since "ASAP" can be > arbitrarily late. And can't RDEPENDs be arbitrarily late if there is a cycle? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
