On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:22:26 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Since 'wanted' is still undefined, I'd say it produces the defined solution and you can adapt to the definition to get what you want.
