On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:19:04 +0200 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:13:57 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:07:00 +0200 > > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > The best way to convince me is through valid examples. > > > > > > It is also easier to be convinced when you try to understand and > > > ask for clarifications instead of just rejecting without > > > thinking :) > > > > The problem with this entire proposal is that it's still in "well I > > can't think of how it could possibly go wrong" territory. We need a > > formal proof that it's sound. History has shown that if something > > can be abused by Gentoo developers, it will be abused... > > Had you read the thread you would have noticed that I provided an > algorithm giving sufficient conditions for the solver to work. That > is, if developers pay attention to repoman warnings/errors, it will > never fail. Obviously, since we're still in the SAT space, you can > ignore the errors and make it fail, but it'll never be worse than what > we currently have.
You have shown that you produce a solution, not the solution that's actually wanted. -- Ciaran McCreesh
