On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:30:10 +0200 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > 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.
So you're saying that at the end of this, there's an ENFORCED_USE solver that spits out some answer that may or may not be in any way a sane solution to the conflict. I don't see how that's helpful to a user. -- Ciaran mcCreesh
