* Matthias Urlichs [141103 07:48]:
> > As long as only a small number of packages have the wrong priority,
> > starting with that set and pulling the rest in via dependencies is
> > likely to not run into any ugly problems. So simple algorithms have
> > a chance.
> >
> I'm not saying that we shoul
Hi,
Bernhard R. Link:
> Resolving dependencies is a hard and complex task. In general it will
> not even have a unique solution. And virtual packages, alternatives
> and versioned depends needs more complexity (including backtracking
> to find solutions) than most tools can do.
>
We're not talkin
* Matthias Urlichs [141029 19:48]:
> That's obvious. What is not so obvious, to me, is why we would still
> want the current policy in the first place, given that everything(?)
> is resolved via dependencies these days.
Resolving dependencies is a hard and complex task. In general it will
not eve
Le Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 05:09:45PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs a écrit :
> Santiago Vila:
> > Maybe because current policy allows one to take the following set of
> > packages:
> >
> > + Packages of required priority.
> > * Packages of important or higher priority.
> > * Packages of standard or highe
I'd say this policy is not only not bringing anything good, but is
actively harmful. It does cause a data loss: neither we nor the tools know
what a package's real priority should be as it's overwritten by the max
priority of its dependencies.
Problem 1: non-default user wishes
debootstrap --excl
5 matches
Mail list logo
