On 2014-02-04 10:49:53 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 4 February 2014 10:24, Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> wrote: > > Because I would say: A remove can be caused by some obsolete package > > due to a conflict with the newly installed package (or one of its > > dependencies). But in such a case, the remove would occur in *every* > > solution. If a package is not obsolete, aptitude should never propose > > it for removal when another solution can solve the problem. > > > > That is not the results from the current problem resolver, removals > often pop up in isolated solutions, including different solutions with > different removals. I do not know why that happens, however, given > that it does, the proposed change to safety levels will dismiss some > potentially trivial, very short solutions (e.g. 1 removal) in favour > of dozens or more solutions that install/upgrade hundreds of packages > each.
But removing a package providing a useful application is not a satisfactory solution. And having to upgrade hundreds of packages (which is quite rare) is not a problem since this is what users should eventually do, for various reasons (security...). So, the size of the solution is not a good criterion. > Again, I am only addressing the proposed patch. There are better > options, such as adjusting the default value of > Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost to account for the number of > removals vs installs, or similar, but people should use such settings > and provide feedback on the quality of the solutions and their order. It would be better if aptitude could tell the reasons that led to the proposed solution. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
