08.11.14 22:47, hasufell написав(ла): > On 11/08/2014 10:30 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On 11/08/2014 08:32 PM, hasufell wrote: >>>>> Sorry to chime in like that but if you don't mind, I'd like to ask for a >>>>> real-life example for badly declared dependencies with a few words why >>>>> those are bad and how to make them actually better? >>>>> >>>> >>>> from dev-haskell/hashtables (note "hashtables" != "hashable"): >>>> || ( ( >=dev-haskell/hashable-1.1:=[profile?] >>>> <dev-haskell/hashable-1.2:=[profile?] ) >>>> ( >=dev-haskell/hashable-1.2.1:=[profile?] >>>> <dev-haskell/hashable-1.3:=[profile?] ) >>>> ) >>>> >>>> Latest stable version of dev-haskell/hashable is 1.2.1.0. >>>> On a stable system (arch) the paludis dep-solver will try to match the >>>> first group first and realize that there is also a stable version >>>> 1.1.2.5 that matches that group. At that point there is a correct >>>> solution, but since that involves downgrading a package, it will require >>>> user-intervention, because it may not be what the user wants. >>>> (this is the easy scenario... if downgrading causes blockers, you get >>>> much more interesting output) >>>> >>> >>> To be more specific... it is assumed that hashable-1.2.1.0 is already >>> installed. Every time the dep solver runs through those packages without >>> specifying what you want, you will hit the downgrade-problem. >> >> I'm missing the problem. The package requires one of two ranges of >> hashable versions. One of them is already installed. The dependency >> is satisfied. >> > > The one that is installed (1.2.1.0) is *excluded* by the first group, > but there is a valid version that fits instead (1.1.2.5). > > That's the point where the assumptions start about what the depstring > means and what the user wants. >
So the problem is only with intervals? First of all, maintainer would specify higher interval first here and it would solve a problem with possible downgrading. Second, || is rather not for such cases as you've said, so we could ask for a new syntax and solve this problem in the right way in one of the next EAPIs. Are there any other problems in current model apart from intervals? I would really like to see a list of them all. -- Jauhien
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
