On 06/26/2018 11:30 AM, Milan Kovacik wrote:
Folks,
TL;DR should we support alternative solvers (configuration) during
recursive unit association?
I've been refactoring the current approach to RPM dependency solving
for e.g the recursive copy to be able to handle rich dependencies[1].
While testing, I ran into an dependency issue that is caused by me not
processing file-provides records correctly[2].
No matter the current insufficiency in my coding, a user trying to
copy stuff from a repo with libsolv-unresolvable dependencies might
hit similar issues and consider them regressions from previous
behavior, hence the question:
Should the user be able to select a solver (configuration) for
particular associate call thru the REST API?
I commented on the PR, but i think the behavior we're seeing is okay and
can be ignored (assuming we can still pull in the deps that are
available). Assuming we can, do we still need it to be configurable?
I would also like to point out this issue to keep in mind:
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2478
Justin
Cheers,
milan
[1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1122
[2] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1122#issuecomment-400061802
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
