On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:19 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:01:21 +0200 > Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200 > > > Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100 > > > > Ciaran McCreesh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200 > > > > > Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > But didn't we already point out that we can't have them in > > > > > > RDEPEND since they introduce conflicts? > > > > > > > > > > You are missing a basic and important part of how dependency > > > > > resolution works: currently, cycles consisting purely of > > > > > RDEPENDs are ignorable. > > > > > > > > So, what do we lose? If PDEP comes 'ASAP' officially, I believe > > > > that we actually gain RDEPs which can be actually trusted. > > > > > > "ASAP" is a weaker guarantee that RDEPENDs currently have -- > > > RDEPENDs currently have the weakest guarantee necessary to ensure > > > that they can be trusted. It's also a useless guarantee, since > > > "ASAP" can be arbitrarily late. > > > > And can't RDEPENDs be arbitrarily late if there is a cycle? > > No. RDEPENDs have to be available when a package is used to satisfy a > dependency. That's the difference between an RDEPEND and a PDEPEND. So, if a particular cycle prohibits RDEPENDs being fulfilled when RDEPEND is needed to satisfy a dependency, we have a failure now, correct? Do we have that guarantee somewhere in the PMS? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
