* Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de [141103 07:48]:
As long as only a small number of packages have the wrong priority,
starting with that set and pulling the rest in via dependencies is
likely to not run into any ugly problems. So simple algorithms have
a chance.
I'm not saying that
* Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de [141029 19:48]:
That's obvious. What is not so obvious, to me, is why we would still
want the current policy in the first place, given that everything(?)
is resolved via dependencies these days.
Resolving dependencies is a hard and complex task. In
Hi,
Bernhard R. Link:
Resolving dependencies is a hard and complex task. In general it will
not even have a unique solution. And virtual packages, alternatives
and versioned depends needs more complexity (including backtracking
to find solutions) than most tools can do.
We're not talking
Le Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 05:09:45PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs a écrit :
Santiago Vila:
Maybe because current policy allows one to take the following set of
packages:
+ Packages of required priority.
* Packages of important or higher priority.
* Packages of standard or higher priority.
I'd say this policy is not only not bringing anything good, but is
actively harmful. It does cause a data loss: neither we nor the tools know
what a package's real priority should be as it's overwritten by the max
priority of its dependencies.
Problem 1: non-default user wishes
debootstrap
5 matches
Mail list logo
