also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.17.1124 +0100]: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 08:34:07PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > > Debian's nice in terms of dependency handling, but this really > > only applies to stable. I wonder why we don't accept the fact > > that a lot of users run a total mixture, like a stable base, > > with packages from testing and unstable as needed, and start > > thinking that way? > > Because it's a total nightmare to support (i.e. construct > consistent dependency trees for) and doesn't really work properly > as it is?
Really? Here is an algorithm:
b = broken_package_count
foreach dependency:
if versioned:
automark specific version of dependency package for installation
if broken_package_count > b:
unmark version for installation
notify user of failure to automatically fulfill dependencies
else:
automark dependency package for installation
This would at least try to do its best. What are the problems with
it?
--
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' : proud Debian developer, admin, and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
