> Nagy Gabor wrote: > > > > Bump on these. As I see, 1-2 are fixed now (mentioned in the first > > mail of this thread). But the "duplicated messages/data-list" issue > > is still here. After my "Print warning in _alpm_resolvedep() if a > > satisfier package is ignored without QUESTION" patch this issue > > became even worse, maybe that patch should be reverted, I dunno... > > > > The most precise [but ugly source-code] solution would be the > > following (imho): Maintain a dropped list for dropped > > (unresolvable) packages. This would prevent duplicated work (and > > duplicated messages), and this would speed-up our algorithm a bit > > in xav's example. > > > > Bye > > > > Hi, I was on vacation in Australia for 3 weeks and am in the process > of moving now, so I'm really out of the loop here. I can barely > remember the issues involved here. I believe I submitted two patches > before I left that solved some of the issues that were pointed out by > Nagy. Have these been accepted into the pacman sources? Nagy, are > you running your test with these patches?
Your "Look in target-list first to resolve dependencies" and "Remove duplicates from the unresolvable list before..." patches were accepted. > If so, then I agree that the final problems that exist are ugly, but > fortunately just cosmetic. > > I also continue to believe that the warning message you've added > about ignored packages is unnecessary. The user knows what packages > they've put in their ignore list and that these packages may be > ignored at any time as dependency satisfiers. I don't think they > need to be warned about it. At the very least, it should be an > optional warning turned on by a command-line flag. That's my opinion > anyway. > > If your warning is taken out, what does the new output of pacman look > like in the situation you are reporting? I imagine there are still > some duplicated messages, but what exactly? The problem is that pacman may want to pull a package many times (without success, of course), and all the warnings around this package may be echoed many times: a. provider package was selected b. cannot resolve "foo", a dependency of "bar" c. ignoring package [NEW]. Basically, I think that a. is useful, because pacman's automatic provision selection is not always suitable for the user [libgl], b. can be simply removed (finally we always print a nice error message, which should be tuned using causingpkg, read back ;-), c. may be unnecessary (But I don't really like when pacman is totally silent about IgnorePkg. Don't forget that we also have IgnoreGroup.). My standpoint is that some of these messages are useful, but at most once ;-). I have no clear solution for this issue, we may have to make some compromises... Bye _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
