On 2016-09-29 13:28:48 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-09-29 10:17:57 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote: > > But what if PackageA is something like libc? A hundred packages are to be > > upgraded but PackageB is old and incompatible. Clearly, even though you've > > boosted the cost of removals, it's STILL cheaper to remove PackageB than it > > is to cancel those hundred installs. > > Wrong. I've said "removals" in SolutionCost. So, 1 removal is cheaper > than *any* number of canceled actions. If I wanted some compromise > between removals and canceled actions, I would have put something > like: removals + 100 * canceled-actions.
I meant: 100 * removals + canceled-actions (i.e. 1 remove has the same cost of 100 canceled actions). -- 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)
