-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Manuel,
On 03/09/16 19:36, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > I think that there might be duplicates, some of them are old, but probably > some are fresh enough. I might even have stumbled over it now and then, but > since the resolver gives very bad solutions so often, I skip over the bad > solutions so quickly that I don't always pay attention. So I'll take > a look at this along to other reports at some point, although it's always > daunting. > > > One of the things that might have made it worse is enabling multi-arch, which > I did a few years ago. > I can imagine. One thing you might consider on resolving package conflicts is looking at source packages. If there is a source package S used to build s1 and s2, then it appears to be pretty unlikely that upgrading s1 and keeping the old version of s2 makes any sense. Since there are quite a number of source packages creating a large list of binary packages each, this scheme could help to reduce the dependency graph and to get rid of a lot of "bad solutions" (optionally, of course). Maybe this scheme could be extended to multiarch as well. I wouldn't like that additional 32bit packages sneak in just to resolve a conflict in the 64bit environment. Regards Harri -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW47D9AAoJEAqeKp5m04HLoIIH/j+deD4cZPKx/EfZqg4+GvTD lmIACLr6x+WZKiX7u+RBzD45E3YV07V23cXxG+Lt2sgO8iYPDzTYCq97kOLtLgbf BSHmZF2ABbmyAyoS/yMFhbccEjbG6H1/0IrSg43H2zWLcBEE6fjYp3T73YRNUzRh uLhIqVRKLcGbQfpyQUBJhB1vpVkxN1dIzKYutcy22BGbZhjhxfs5z0A9SQdGoDYQ Ns7TwsbMXdA5qIyAAVABCkNLQts0TcrCF0OEKSbN++oI2V3N0vUUPX7AQJ6AoAtG L7UIqMn0AmAKi5wxIAXSMqhI5DPHwLD3uKPjPCAtCP7B4B188ZVCHzgvoxGVuLA= =fQ7r -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----